News Corp in Australia is hedging its bets when it comes to 'anti-vaxx' sentiment now the NSW Delta Variant Outbreak really starts to bite

 

The Guardian, 29 July 2021:

The Daily Telegraph has ended Alan Jones’s regular column amid controversy about his Covid-19 commentary, including calling the NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant a village idiot on his Sky News program.

There has been apparent tension inside News Corp Australia between the anti-lockdown Sky After Dark commentators like Jones and Andrew Bolt and the Holt Street newspapers, which have been promoting vaccination and criticising the “freedom” protest in Sydney.

The Daily Telegraph editor Ben English told Jones he was dropping his column because it didn’t “resonate” with readers.

Jones, 80, says he doesn’t believe his columns don’t resonate with readers.

“If the argument has been it’s not resonating, I don’t have to defend myself,” Jones told The Sydney Morning Herald.

“Have a look at Sky News YouTube, Sky News Facebook and Alan Jones Facebook and you can see. The same column that I write for the Tele goes up on my Facebook page.

“The public can check it for themselves. 35 years at top of the radio - and I don’t resonate with the public? Honestly.”

Asked about Jones’s attacks on Chant, the NSW health minister Brad Hazzard told reporters at a press conference that a lot of people “don’t base their decisions in science, or evidence”.

“All I will say is we are in a one-in-100-year pandemic,” he said. “The community need to understand the decisions are taken as best as possible on the basis of evidence and science to keep us safe.”

Jones’s final Telegraph column last week criticised Australia’s response to Covid-19, which he argues is no worse than the flu for healthy people.

On Monday on Sky News, Jones launched an attack on Chant, calling her “dumb” and “out of touch”. “How many villages are missing their idiot?” he said.

The former 2GB broadcaster also defended the Sydney protesters…..

News Corp columnist's rant runs foul of Australian Press Council standards

Australian Press Council:

Adjudication 1757: Complainant / The Daily Telegraph (June 2019)  

Document Type: Complaints

Outcome: Adjudications

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Daily Telegraph on 13 September 2017 by The Daily Telegraph headed in print “An identity crisis” and online “WHAT MADNESS CAN JUSTIFY MUTILATING OUR CHILDREN” and a Podcast on 16 April 2018 titled “Ryan T. Anderson joins Miranda Devine live on gender identity”, included as a link in the online article.  

The article referred to a “pernicious social fad for transgenderism in children which has been embraced by an activist subset of the medical profession” and stated that “new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning children” and “hundreds of children who say they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex are being referred to gender clinics in Australia, with numbers tripling in the past three years at one Sydney clinic.” It included comments by a named University Professor, who it described as “one of the few pediatricians courageous enough to speak out against this fashion for ‘child surgical abuse’”. It quoted the Professor saying that “Prepubertal children have no idea about sexuality and choices of procreation afterwards” and “We’re messing with their limbic system and expecting them to make this great evaluation.”

The article went on to say: “Yet there is no medical evidence to justify the epidemic of transgender kids. No evidence that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide or lessen the impact of other associated mental states such as depression or autism.” The article concluded: “When they grow up, surely these children have grounds for a class ­action against the hospitals and drug companies which have ­mounted such a monstrous assault on their developing bodies.”

The podcast was referred to as an interview with Ryan T. Anderson to “discuss recent attempts in Australia and the United States to introduce gender theory into anti-bullying programs”. The introduction said: “Children are being given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and having their breasts removed at the age of 14 and 15 with the permission of the Family Court. Yet there is little medical evidence to justify this experimentation on children, no evidence that these hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or suicide.”

Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article and podcast complied with its Standards of Practice. In particular, the Council sought comment on the statement that there is “no evidence” that “cross-sex hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or suicide” or “that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide”. The Council referred the publication to a number of articles identified by the complainant, including one entitled “Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline” (2009).

In addition the Council sought comment on whether the article’s statement that “new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning their children”, given the provisions of the new Victorian Health Complaints Act, and on the descriptions of medical procedures as “mutilation” and “child surgical abuse” and a “monstrous assault on their developing bodies” were a breach of the Council’s Standards.

The publication said the article and the content of the podcast were clearly identified as opinion and the author was entitled to express her opinion concerning the medical practices administered to children and adolescents in gender clinics. It said that in making comments, particularly those concerning there being “no evidence” of the matters referred to, the author relied on interviews with medical experts in the field, widespread reading of the scientific literature and anecdotal evidence of parents and people who regret childhood hormone or surgical interventions, as well as the experiences of a transgender friend of the author. The publication identified a number of medical articles as relevant.

The publication said the Victorian Health Complaints Act is designed to prevent conversion therapy of sexual minorities and to provide for a complaints process about health service provision.

It said the columnist was entitled to express her views on the appropriateness of how sections of the medical profession are treating children who they believe are transgender and to express her view that it is wrong for a child as young as 15 years to be receiving medically unnecessary double mastectomies.

Conclusion

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), and presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).  The Standards of Practice also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council notes that the article and the podcast contain expressions of the author’s opinion. However, the Council considers they also contain material presented as facts, including the statement in the article that there is “No evidence that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide or lessen the impact of other associated mental states such as depression or autism” and in the podcast that there is “no evidence that these hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or suicide”.  

The Council accepts that it is open to an author to question the appropriateness of particular medical treatments and procedures. There may be conflicting evidence in support of, or opposition to, such treatments which the Council will not be in a position to resolve. However the statements that there was “no evidence” was not qualified in any way, such as asserting that there was no reliable evidence. The Council notes that the publication did not rely on any particular article as supporting a statement that there was “no evidence”. The Council considers that, given the existence of medical guidelines which recommend various treatments and procedures to assist transitioning children and adolescents, the statement that there was “no evidence” was made in such absolute terms that it was inaccurate and misleading.  The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure these statements were accurate and not misleading. 

Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3 in these respects. This conclusion does not amount to a finding on the appropriateness of the medical treatments available.

As to the new laws in Victoria, the Council considers that the broad term ‘therapists’ could include persons who, if providing a general health service, may fall under the remit of the new Victorian Health Complaints Act and therefore be subject to penalties under the Act. The Council is satisfied on the material available to it that the statement “... new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning children …” is not inaccurate or misleading. Accordingly, the Council does not consider that General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

As the publication was not approached for a correction or right of reply, the Council considers there was no breach of General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council accepts that the columnist’s descriptions of medical procedures as “mutilation”, “child surgical abuse” and a “monstrous assault on their developing bodies” were likely to cause offence and distress amongst those undergoing such treatment and amongst their families, and were also likely to cause or exacerbate prejudice. However, the Council considers there is public interest in vigorous public debate about the issue, even when an argument is expressed in very strong terms, as is the case here. The Council considers that to the extent there was substantial offence, distress and prejudice, it was justified in the public interest. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached. 

Relevant Council Standards (not required for publication)

This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.

Publications must take reasonable steps to:

General Principle 1 – Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.

General Principle 2 – Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.

General Principle 3 – Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

General Principle 4 – Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

General Principle 6 - Avoid causing or contributing materiality to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

Some newspapers never learn.......

On 12 December 2014 the Australian Press Council released its findings in Adjudication 1627: Complainant/The Daily Telegraph:

The Council considers that the headline and other material on the front page collectively imply that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP. This implication is due partly to the fact that the comparison in the words prominently super-imposed on the two photographs, and in the article on the front page, was between the full number of war-wounded people and the full number of DSP recipients. The implication is also contributed to by the stark contrast between the apparently able-bodied people in the queue and the severely wounded soldier. The impact of the front page presentation was not adequately dispelled by any of the material that appeared on subsequent pages, and evidence provided did not justify the implication. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that the headline, headings and text on the front page breached the Standards of Practice requiring reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness.

The Council also considers the implication that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP was offensive to an extent not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the material also breached the Standards of Practice on that ground.

The very same day, in print and online The Daily Telegraph was at it again, this time using the term “rorters” and “lowlife rorters”:

Time to weed out the disability rorters: Crackdown on $16 billion welfare scheme

RORTERS who try to falsely claim millions of dollars in ­Disability Support Pensions will be flushed out of the ­system under a ­crackdown on the $16 billion welfare scheme.

From January 1, all new DSP ­applicants will be sent to ­Commonwealth-appointed doctors before they can be ­approved as part of a sweeping overhaul that will stamp out the “doctor shopping” rort.

The federal government will today announce that regular doctors will no longer be allowed to approve new DSP applications in the new year….

The Daily Telegraph failed to point out that a DSP applicant’s treating GP does not have the final say on whether or not a person is granted what its journalist described as "handouts".

It also avoided the subject of the need for applicants to provide corroborating evidence of their diagnosed conditions/symptoms from medical specialists and, supply reports from allied health professionals along with the results of diagnostics tests and any physical tests or assessments.

The newspaper also neglected to mention that the departmental Impairment Tables which have applied to all new applicants for DSP and any existing DSP recipients selected for medical review since 1 January 2012 are function-based not diagnosis based ie. The presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating may be assigned.

UPDATE

mUmBRELLA 15 December 2014:

The Australian Press Council has confirmed to Mumbrella the edition has attracted “at least one complaint” by 4pm, but did not specify how many, or the nature of them.

* Images from Your Democracy and mUmBRELLA   
                                                      

The invisible Mrs Abbott

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott arrived at the memorial service for the late Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam without his wife, as can clearly be seen in the snapshots below.

However, The Daily Telegraph reported on the same day that: There were loud boos from the crowds outside Sydney Town Hall for Prime Minister Tony Abbott as he arrived with wife Margie. [my red bolding]

Such a silly, pointless lie.

A solo Abbott on the steps of the Sydney Town Hall with attendant:

Making his way to his seat inside the town hall with attendant:

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

Australian Federal Election 2013: backlash against Murdoch's political tactics

A newsagent couple in a small New South Wales town have refused to sell The Daily Telegraph of August 5, 2013, because of its biased front page.

Bec ‏@Brocklesnitch

Brisbane cafe putting its foot down over the Courier Mail

Murdoch's minions labour to produce a little undergraduate humour

Excerpt from Sky AM Agenda transcript of interview with Federal Labor Trade Minister Richard Marles, 8 August 2013:

GILBERT: Finally, the Daily Telegraph's front page has Thommo's heroes Craig Thomson and, well, accompanied by Anthony Albanese as Sergeant Schultz and Kevin Rudd as Colonel Klink. This - even though he's on the front page would see this as humorous one, wouldn't they?

MARLES: Well, we can all have a laugh at it and this ranks up there with the Stephen Conroy front page. It gives all of those on the front page something to put in their pool rooms. And, look, it's funny. I think the point to be made here, Kieran, is that they're not editing Honi Soit; this is not a campus newspaper that they're putting together here. This is our largest city's biggest newspaper and so they can have some fun with it. It's perspective journalism; there's no sense now in which this is fair or balanced media. And, of course, it's a free country; they can do what they like. But I think they do need to remember what masthead they're actually editing here.

GILBERT: Okay. Richard Marles, thank you for joining us live from Geelong this morning.

What will the Australian Press Council do about this?

The Daily Telegraph's blatantly false Page One headline of 18 March 2013

Mr Denmore ‏@MrDenmore

Oh, the author of The Tele's carbon collapse fiction is our friend Steve Lewis, he of Ozcar and Ashby fame.

Mr Denmore ‏@MrDenmore

The Tele's source for the 'carbon collapse' are unnamed 'experts'. Odd as the share market is at a 4-year high and business confidence is up

Yesterday morning I happened on these two tweets and this snapshot on Twitter. Given New Limited's involvement in the current hysteria surrounding the Federal Government's response to the 2011 and 2012 independent media reviews, I went to that day's issue of The Daily Telegraph and this is what I found. The Daily Telegraph's Steve Lewis and Phil Jacob are asserting that: New data from the corporate regulator reveals insolvencies have hit a record high over the past 12 months, led by widespread failures in manufacturing and construction, which accounted for almost one-fifth of collapses. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports there were 10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1 - averaging 886 a month - with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis. While the high Australian dollar is seen as the main factor behind manufacturing closures, experts say the carbon tax is adding to increasing cost burdens for many firms struggling to stay afloat. The first problem with this statement is that it is plain wrong. The "10,632" figure does not come from a twelve month period ending on 1 March this year - this total is for the 2012 calendar year. A clue for these two journalists might have been found in the fact that the data set was released on 18 February 2013. What The Daily Telegraph journalists also do not say is that in the total figure quoted almost half of these external administration/insolvencies occurred before the introduction of the 'cabon tax' and, that prior to the tax, in February-March 2012 there were 2,137 insolvencies which made this the highest combined figure for two consecutive months in a data set which begins in 1996. As for the more than one business is going the wall every hour in Australia found in text in the snapshot above - I suggest that The Daily Telegraph invest in new batteries for the office calculator as that Page One assertion is wrong on so many levels. So what else in that Lewis-Jacob article is open to question? Well, let me start with Grain Products Australia the country’s only manufacturer of caramel and dextrin and one of only two wheat starch and gluten manufacturers. A company in liquidation since 11 March this year and one the journalists try hard to mold into a carbon tax victim. Over six months before the introduction of the carbon price, this company went into voluntary administration citing the high cost of wheat and what were then solely state electricity charges. That leaves Penrice Soda Holdings the only Australian soda ash manufacturer. It was quoted by the Lewis-Jacob team as saying that the reason it was ceasing local raw material quarrying and importing its soda ash was that the carbon tax was effectively the straw that broke the camel's back. However, a little basic fact checking would have shown that last February it told its shareholders and the Australian Stock Exchange that the factory closure was reflecting deteriorating demand conditions in soda ash and quarry material markets as well as impacts from a high Australian dollar. There was not one word about the carbon tax. Finally, the biggest whopper these two journalists told about the business sector in 2012 which is this line; with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis. The Global Financial Crisis began in 2007-08 and did not lose momentum until 2009-10. Even the most mathematically challenged News Limited employee would realise that the business external administration/insolvency totals for those years far exceed the 2012 total which The Daily Telegraph is currently treating as an end of days event. So what will the Australian Press Council do about a newspaper which so distorts the facts and journalists whom I'm told now know that they have based their 10,632 company collapses on a dodgy premise? Why its twenty-three members will pretend that they never saw or heard of this article - unless a member of the public makes a formal complaint. UPDATE: The Leader of the Opposition makes the mistake of relying on the Lewis-Jacob article during the House of Representatives Question Time on 18 March 2013. A reliance the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, notes during that same Question Time: ...over the last couple of days the Leader of the Opposition, the New South Wales government and the Daily Telegraph have been misleading the public yet again about the impact of carbon pricing. Yesterday it was a false claim about electricity prices in New South Wales. Today the Daily Telegraph is back with ridiculous claims about economic catastrophe, repeated here today in the very first question by the Leader of the Opposition—there seems to be some commonality of approach that we are witnessing. The Telegraph story today takes the misuse of statistics, hysterical headlines and distortion of facts to levels that would have done Pravda proud during the height of the Cold War.

Newspaper nicknames

Readers of newspapers can, at times, be very cruel. For some, all they have to do to get their daily fill is stroll out through the front door and pick the day's copy up off the driveway (if the deliverer has been on target), out of the rose bushes or (and I swear this is true) if the deliverer has it really in for you, off the roof.

Column8 in today's Herald provides further samples of homework it set its readers. The task was simple enough. All that was required of readers was to tell the Herald (aka Granny) the nickname they gave their newspapers. Previously, The Courier-Mail was said to be the 'Curious Snail', The Cairns Post is the Cairns Ghost (it's thin and wispy at times), The West Australian is the Wet Alsatian and the SMH is The Sydenham Awning Herald ("it works better said than read".

Today, the Western Advocate is the Western Abdicate, The Canberra Times is The Crimes and our own local rag, The Daily Examiner, is 'the one minute's silence' (that's how long it takes to read it).

 

Our neighbours are somewhat kinder, they call it the 'Egg Timer' but Elsie, who lives up the street, calls it 'The Daily Exterminator'. At our place it's referred to as 'The Rapper' - most mornings it takes longer to get the plastic wrap off it than it does to read it, but that's nothing to whinge about. In fact, that task can be quite a challenge and test the grey matter a lot more than a Rubic Cube.

Note to DEX editor and staff: don't get your knickers in knots over those comments. DEX is just like our pet greyhound - you're 'family' and we still luvs ya, warts and all.

U.S. Embassy in Canberra brings forth a LOL

The do you know the truth or do you read Telegraph gets the thumbs up:

Reference ID 09CANBERRA335
Origin U.S. Embassy Canberra, Australia
Cable time Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:41 UTC
Classification CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN

“The Murdoch-owned tabloid, "The Daily Telegraph", Sydney's largest selling newspaper…often an accurate gauge of what Labor's core working-class voters are thinking.”

Haven’t laughed so hard in weeks.

Boltas of the Month

Clever clogs pseudo-journalist Andrew Bolt baldly said on ABC TV’s “Insiders” program last Sunday that there were between 400-500 people at the anti-carbon tax rally and 800 at the pro-carbon price rally held last Saturday.
On his own blog post on Saturday night he seems to agree with the higher pro-price rally figure of more than 8,000 reported in the MSM and in Sunday update apologizes for his so-called misremembering on the aired program.
Not good enough Bolta! Even you had seen the 12^th March pics by the time you settled your backside into that studio chair early the next day and it's hard to avoid the tag great big fib to get the last word in an argument.

Teh Four Hundred going its hapless 'half a league onwards'

Teh Eight Thousand filling the wide lens and then some

Wait. There's more.......
On the very same day Bolt was playing fast and loose with rally numbers he also had a go at Grog's Gamut in his Daily Tele post "Exit, laughing".
To which Grog replied:
"But here’s the thing, while I can understand Bolt wanting to label me as a public servant, and also a third generation one, and also a third generation Canberran one (laziest of the lot they are!) there’s just one slight problem:
It is not true.
You see the statement that I am a third-generation Canberra public servant is an untruth, a falsehood, a fiction, a furphy. In short, a lie."
So within a space of hours Teh Bolta is on record as fibbing about rallies, Chenobyl and a public servant.
Here's laughing at you, Andrew.

Queensland made a clean sweep of 2009 State of Origin ... well, that's what The Daily Telegraph told its readers

Queensland 28, NSW 16!
What game did Steve Jancetic watch?
No, Steve, NSW 28 defeated Queensland 16.

The image above was captured a few minutes after the game finished.

Steve, get yourself one of those T-shirts that carries the slogan

"Is that true or
did you read it in
The Daily Telegraph?"

Image credit: The Daily Telegraph