Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
On the subject of verballing - just how stupid does Meeja Tart Abbott and Poodle Pyne think Aussie punters are?
“I’ve been verballed!” cries Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. “He’s been verballed!” cries Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne. “Julia dun it and the police should help us make political capital out of this!” they both yell in the meeja.
So what do we have here as the basis for a politically motivated police investigation into who said what and when?
On Thursday 26th January 2012 one of the Prime minister’s media advisers was allegedly informed by a journalist of what Abbott said about the Aboriginal Tent Embassy’s relevance and future. It is possible that the journalist expanded on these remarks.
The advisor informed a union official, stating where Abbott was attending an function. The official in turn informed another at the Embassy and also pointed to where Abbott could be found.
People at an Australia Day event at the Embassy reacted and attempted to confront Abbott at The Lobby restaurant shortly afterwards.
Police appear to have been called to the rowdy demonstration at around 2.30pm.
Accepting the dubious proposition that Abbott really was verballed (and leaving aside the possible involvement of his own media advisers), who did this alleged verbally first?
Was it members of the Prime Minister’s staff?
Nah, it was the mainstream meeja that the Leader of the Opposition so assiduously courts– and here’s the visual evidence which was online on the 26th January beginning at 10.35am with what was probably an item drawn from the the Australian Associated Press news feed:
Snapshot of Perth Now AAP report at 10.35am on 26th January 2012
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Snapshot of Sky News report at 1.03pm 26th Jaunary 2012
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Snapshots of The Telegraph online AAP report at 1.35pm on 26th January 2012
Click on images to enlarge
Click on images to enlarge
So before either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott arrived at the restaurant for the National Emergency Services Medal ceremony, an inflammatory version of Abbott's remarks had been spread across Australia coast to coast - without any help from prime ministerial staff.
And all the Coalition political spin in the world won't change that fact.
* Thanks to Clarencegirl for the snapshots
Member for Clarence careless with the truth
Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has either lied to The Daily Examiner or to the Concerned Citizens Group in relation to funding for a second Grafton bridge.
CCG member Lynne Cairns said Mr Gulaptis had told her and three other members of the group, at a meeting on December 7, that the O'Farrell Government had $300 million set aside for the new bridge. Her claim was backed by fellow CCG members Kim Dahl, Sue Hillery and Lynne's husband, Bob.
But, fielding questions from The Examiner on Friday, Mr Gulaptis emphatically denied he made such a revelation.
"There's funding for planning ... but there's no funding set aside in this budget," he said. "Our commitment is that it will be physically started in this term (before March 2015).
"I apologise if people have misunderstood."
Mr Gulaptis said he understood if the community was sceptical about the bridge being started anytime in the near future, considering Bob Carr made a similar promise in 2002.
"But we will have an option in place by the middle of this year, Bob Carr didn't have that, so we are well on our way."
Various members of the CCG, a group opposed to a new bridge coming into central Grafton, also expressed disappointment at Mr Gulaptis' apparent shift in stance on the issue of where the new crossing should be.
"Before the election he was emphatic that all the heavy traffic needed to be moved out of town and now he's saying it should be left to the experts," Mr Dahl said.
"He's really mucked us around with his position," Mrs Cairns said.
Mr Gulaptis said he would not speculate as to which option the RMS would select as the preferred route but said each one required further technical investigations.
He said there was no point speculating on the options unless you were a technical expert.
Let Steve Cansdell take his lumps in silence
Click on image to enlarge
The Daily Examiner published an opinion piece last Friday suggesting disgraced former Nationals MP for Clarence, Steve Cansdell, should keep a low profile.
Something that is not likely to happen as it seems Cansdell has plans to re-enter politics and is rumoured to have his eye on the federal electorate of Page, which is currently held by Labor's Janelle Saffin.
I suspect that keeping public accolades (like the tribute dinner) coming is not something his lawyers are averse to either as Cansdell faces the possibility of having to answer before the courts for his admitted wrongdoing.
Do you know the truth or do you read the tabloids?
News Limited is rapped over the knuckles by the Australian Press Council:
Document Type:
Complaints
Outcome:
Adjudications
Date:
22 Dec 2011
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about three articles in The Daily Telegraph on 9 June, 17 June and 6 July 2011 concerning aspects of the National Broadband Network (NBN). The articles appeared with the headlines shown below, although the first article also appeared in other News Limited newspapers under a different headline.
“Australian taxpayers’ latest NBN horror show”
Jamie Benaud complained this article understated the number of customers who had taken up NBN offers and accordingly overstated the ratio of NBN staff to customers. He also said the claim that during the trial period customers and internet service providers (ISPs) were accessing NBN services without charge was not true in Tasmania. The newspaper said the customer figures were based on the latest available to it at the time of publication and that free access applied in all mainland States.
The Council considered the newspaper should have made greater efforts to get up-to-date customer figures, although the error did not substantially affect the point being made. It considered the assertion about the staff/customer ratio was misleading and unfair as the company was at a very early start-up stage. These errors may well have been considered minor in themselves but the Council noted the forceful nature of the headline and concluded that the complaints about this article should be upheld.
“Join the NBN or you’ll be digging deep”
Mr Benaud complained this article implied inaccurately and unfairly that customers who do not sign up for NBN at the outset would have to pay an "estimated" $900 a day to get the cable laid to their house at a later date and then up to $140 per month to get an ISP connection. He pointed out that NBN said the later cable-laying would still be free "for standard installation" and that ISP connection costs might be as low as $30 per month. The newspaper agreed its statement about cable-laying costs may have been misread (publishing a clarification as a result) but defended mention of only the upper ISP price as being fair and a common practice.
The Council considered the statement about the cable-laying cost was clearly and seriously inaccurate. It noted the newspaper had attempted later to clarify the matter even though it believed residents had been given the reported information. However, in so doing, it implied incorrectly that the $900 would have to be paid to an ISP. The Council also considered that describing the ISP connection fee as “up to $140” was unfair and misleading when the range was as wide as $30-$140, and the minimum fees had also been well known. Accordingly, the complaints against this article are upheld.
“Low interest in high speed internet”
Mr Benaud complained about this article comparing a particular consumer’s current internet costs of $39 per month with what it said would be $53 to more than $130 per month if he signed up for NBN services. The latter range was actually for a combination of internet and phone services, not internet alone, and, as the consumer has a phone service, he would currently be paying much more than $39 in total for internet and phone. The newspaper said that the customer himself had no issue with the accuracy or portrayal of his words.
The Council considered that, by omission of the costs for combined phone and internet services, the comparison was misleading. Accordingly, the complaint against this article was upheld.
The Council expressed concern that within a short period of time three articles on the same theme contained inaccurate or misleading assertions. It considers that this sequence of errors should not have occurred and that they should have been corrected promptly and adequately when brought to the newspaper’s attention.
Note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission”. It also applies General Principle 2: "Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence”.
Note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission”. It also applies General Principle 2: "Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence”.
Document Type:
Complaints
Outcome:
Adjudications
Date:
22 Dec 2011
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about words on the front-page of the Northern Territory News on 5 August 2011. The words, ASYLUM SEEKERS THREATENED TO KILL AUSSIES, COURT TOLD, were a pointer directing readers to an article on page five about the sentencing of an asylum seeker who “threatened to kill Australians” days before stabbing two security guards in a detention centre.
Penny Campton complained that the words in the pointer were inaccurate and unfair because they implied that a number of asylum seekers had made the threats, whereas the article itself mentioned only one such person. She sought an apology and a retraction of the pointer.
The newspaper said that the use of the plural in the pointer was an error made in the production process. It said that the newspaper encouraged compassion towards asylum seekers and cited an editorial from 22 July and subsequent articles in support of that contention. The newspaper thought the error was not sufficiently serious to warrant a correction or an apology, but it offered to publish a letter from the complainant. She declined on the ground that the newspaper itself should admit and correct the error.
The Council concluded that the pointer was clearly a serious inaccuracy demanding an immediate correction, accompanied by an expression of regret. Offering to publish a letter from the complainant was not considered to be sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld and the Council calls on the newspaper to take the remedial action that should have been taken immediately after it became aware of the mistake.
Note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission”. It also applies General Principle 2: "Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence” and part of Principle 6 "... headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article ...".
Note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission”. It also applies General Principle 2: "Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence” and part of Principle 6 "... headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article ...".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
