Andrew Bolt having a friendly chat with 'Superman' about the Ukraine situation on 2 March 2014

U.S. President Obama telephones Russia’s President Putin on 1 March 2014 and issues an official statement of which the following is an excerpt:

President Obama spoke for 90 minutes this afternoon with President Putin of Russia about the situation in Ukraine. President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter, and of its 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine, and which is inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act. The United States condemns Russia’s military intervention into Ukrainian territory.

The United States calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine. We have consistently said that we recognize Russia’s deep historic and cultural ties to Ukraine and the need to protect the rights of ethnic Russian and minority populations within Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government has made clear its commitment to protect the rights of all Ukrainians and to abide by Ukraine’s international commitments, and we will continue to urge them to do so.

President Obama told President Putin that, if Russia has concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russian and minority populations in Ukraine, the appropriate way to address them is peacefully through direct engagement with the government of Ukraine and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  As a member of both organizations, Russia would be able to participate. President Obama urged an immediate effort to initiate a dialogue between Russia and the Ukrainian government, with international facilitation, as appropriate. The United States is prepared to participate.

President Obama made clear that Russia’s continued violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community. In the coming hours and days, the United States will urgently consult with allies and partners in the UN Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. The United States will suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8. Going forward, Russia’s continued violation of international law will lead to greater political and economic isolation.....

Australian Prime Minister Abbott does not telephone Russia’s President Putin and does not issue an official statement. Instead he answers a few questions in a televised interview with Andrew Bolt on 2 March 2014 (which he then posts on www.pm.gov.au) in which he opines:

Look, I don’t want to offer a running commentary on what’s happening on the ground, just to say Andrew, that this is very, very concerning and I think that every Australian – I think people right around the world – will be thinking right now: hands off the Ukraine. This is not the kind of action of a friend and neighbour and really, Russia should back off.

Bolt goes on to ask:

Are you disappointed with President Obama’s weak response? Your response just then was ten times stronger than that rubbish that we just heard.

Arrant nonsense from an Andrew Bolt apparently intent on recasting Tony Abbott in the superman mold.

It’s been done before and at least then drew a laugh or two.......

loon pond

If the asylum seeker confidential information data breach wasn't so serious, this request to a journalist would be laughable

 Follow Asher Wolf's links to official correspondence.....

Asher Wolf ‏@Asher_Wolf  1h

Australian govt. asked me to "return" "confidential information": http://ow.ly/d/1WjA  I sent them a response: http://ow.ly/d/1WjB 

And click on Colvin's link for an historic Private Eye response.....

Mark Colvin ‏@Colvinius  46m

@Asher_Wolf Advise you to refer them to the reply in Arkell vs Pressdram, viz: http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm …

Australian Press Council finds The Daily Telegraph not fair and balanced in its 2012 reporting dismissal of case against Slipper

Australian Press Council:

Adjudication No. 1573: Margo Kingston/The Daily Telegraph (February 2014)  

Document Type: Complaints

Outcome: Adjudications

Date: 27 Feb 2014

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Daily Telegraph on 13 December 2012, headed “Court rejects Slipper case”. The article reported a Federal Court decision on the previous day to dismiss as an abuse of process a legal action for sexual harassment brought against Peter Slipper MP by James Ashby. It appeared on page 17 of the newspaper and on the publication’s website.

Margo Kingston complained that the report of the dismissal on page 17 did not give it sufficient prominence in light of the newspaper’s very prominent and detailed coverage earlier in the year of Mr Ashby’s commencement of the legal proceedings and his allegations against Mr Slipper. The “exclusive” report on 21 April 2012 about commencement of the proceedings and Mr Ashby’s allegations had occupied all news space on pages 1 and 2 and most of page 3. On the next day, Mr Slipper had stood aside as Speaker.

The Daily Telegraph said page 17 was a prominent page and the top half had comprised the report on the dismissal, a photograph of Mr Ashby and an article on another aspect of the proceedings. It had also published reports about the matter on its website on the previous afternoon and in the next few days had published related reports online and opinion pieces in print. The story also was covered widely in other media outlets.

The newspaper said placement on page 17 was partly because of an unusually high number of other important articles on that day. The greater length and prominence of the coverage in April was due to the topic having much greater political significance as Mr Slipper was then the Speaker and his acceptance of that position had crucially influenced the balance of votes in the House of Representatives. It was also partly because the April story was an “exclusive”.

The Council agrees that the political significance and “newsworthiness” of an event are obviously relevant to the length and prominence with which it is reported. By the time of the dismissal of the proceedings, the political situation had changed considerably, especially because Mr Slipper had stood aside and then, in October, resigned as Speaker. Also, several unrelated news stories (especially the funeral of a police officer) clearly merited prominent coverage in the issue of 13 December.

The Council’s relevant Principle states: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced”. The Principle does not necessarily require complete, or almost complete, fairness or balance. But a combination of factors meant that avoiding serious unfairness or imbalance was of special importance in this particular case.  

First, the commencement of legal proceedings was a story the newspaper had “broken” in April, describing the allegations as “amongst the most serious ever raised” in Australian political history and “potentially deadly”.

Second, the allegations, and progress of the proceedings, were reported prominently on many occasions in ensuing months, often in the first few pages of The Daily Telegraph.

Third, dismissal of the proceedings raised important questions about Mr Slipper’s decision to stand aside as Speaker, which in the words of the newspaper happened “after The Daily Telegraph revealed allegations of sexual harassment and Cabcharge misuse - [which] means the government loses a precious vote in parliament”.

Fourth, readers of a daily newspaper of this kind can reasonably expect to be informed by it of such a key development as the dismissal of these proceedings as an abuse of process for political reasons, especially when it had previously given the matter great prominence.

In the circumstances of this case, it is not reasonable to assume that readers who saw the very prominent coverage across pages 1-3 of the 21 April edition were likely to see the very much less prominent report of the dismissal on page 17 of an edition eight months later or see the report on its website. It also is not reasonable to regard the newspaper’s obligations of fairness and balance as having been met by the story being widely covered in other media outlets.

The Council upholds the complaint due to the very stark difference between the detail, tone and prominence of the newspaper’s initial coverage on 21 April and of its report on 13 December of the dismissal. The later report did not need to match the prominence and detail of the earlier report by, for example, being of similar length and on the same pages. But in the circumstances of this case the degree of difference was so great as to constitute a clear breach of the Council’s Principle concerning fairness and balance.

It is not the Council’s role to say precisely how this unfairness or imbalance should have been avoided. There were clearly a number of possibilities between which the publication could choose.

Additional note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
The newspaper said that the prospect of an appeal by Mr Ashby influenced its decision not to give the issue more extensive treatment. The Council notes, however, that it is common and accepted practice to report court decisions, sometimes in great detail, even though they may be subject to an appeal.

The newspaper also quoted from an Advisory Guideline of the Council on bias. The words which it quoted relate to bias and fairness in publishing different political opinions, but this adjudication relates to fairness and balance in the reporting of facts.

Relevant Council Principles (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies part of General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.”

The Daily Telegraph’s hissy fit ‘editorial’ on Page 59 of its 27 February 2014 issue:

@margokingston1

Japanese whaling - a collapsing industry?

 Deutsche Well 26 February 2014:

"Overall, we have seen persistently low demand for whale meat over recent years, especially among young people," said Patrick Ramage, director of the Whaling Program at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). "A dwindling minority of Japanese still eat whale meat," he says.

The IFAW's latest national polling data was carried out by a research agency and released in February 2013. "The most striking aspect was the overwhelming indifference of a majority of Japanese when asked about whaling," he added.

The report, titled "The Economics of Japanese Whaling: A Collapsing Industry Burdens Taxpayers," utilized official statistics to disprove the claim that commercial whaling is a cultural and nutritional necessity to Japan.

Japan's whaling fleet, for example, is subsidized to the tune of around Y782 million (7.6 million USD) a year, yet the Institute of Cetacean Research still operates at an annual loss. At the same time, consumption of whale meat among the Japanese public today is around 1 percent of its peak, in the early 1960s, and the authorities are encouraging schools to put it on their menus to shift the stockpiles of unsold whale meat...

About 89 percent of people responding to the poll said they had not purchased whale meat in the past 12 months and 85 percent said they were opposed to billions of yen in taxpayers' money being used to prop the industry up.

There was also public anger when it was revealed that some Y2.28 billion were diverted from funds set aside to help communities struggling with the aftermath of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and instead spent on "research whaling, stabilization promotion and countermeasure expenses."

"This is demonstrably an industry in its death throes," Ramage told DW. "It fails to cover its own costs, public demand for the product is decreasing and expenses - including fuel costs, maintenance of vessels, refurbishment and so on - are on the rise."

And the international repercussions are potentially damaging as well, he said. "Whaling is a persistent irritant in Japan's bilateral and multilateral relationships vis-à-vis other governments and international forums," Ramage added. "It needlessly damages the country's international reputation and could ultimately threaten Japanese business, trade and bilateral relations."