It occurs to me that many people are put off politics by their simple expectation that politicians should be honest and their frustration when they’re not.
“To be perfectly frank…” as a beginning to a sentence suggests that, up until this time, the person speaking hasn’t been. However, in politics, what it means is that person is going to continue to waffle about something totally unrelated to the matter at hand. It’s part of the shorthand that anyone who follows politics quickly understands.
Once one understands that, for politicians and the Canberra press gallery, politics has little to do with the real world, then you can treat what they say as having no consequences. After all, it’s what they do all the time.
Like when our Minister for Immigration – who almost always insists that he won’t comment – feels that it’s suddenly OK to give us the details of each of the medical people that the alleged rape victim was alleged to have seen. Then, when she was alleged to have changed her mind about the alleged termination, they allegedly chartered a flight for her to take her back to Nauru which is allegedly a country. in spite of the alleged “fiscal emergency”.
Anyway, here’s a quick guide for those who have been frustrated by expecting that what politicians say should match the way words are used in everyday life:
What They Say
“My understanding is that…”
“Someone has told me a bare-faced lie but I’m blaming them if we’re caught.”
“I have no recollection of that.”
“I’ve been advised by our legal team that you can’t prove that I knew.”
“I believe that…”
“Ok, it’s probably not true, but it sounds better than what you’re suggesting!”
“Mr. X remains a valuable member of our team.”
“Yes, all right, he’s a complete nuff-nuff, but he’s part of a powerful faction/has the photos of me at the Christmas Party when I didn’t think I’d become leader.”
“I’m happy with the job I’m in.”
“The journalist I briefed about the coming spill wasn’t meant to leak it just yet.”
“The fundamentals of the economy are good, even though we’ve had a few hiccups because of conditions overseas!”
“We’re in power!”
“The Australian economy is a complete basket-case and this a direct result of the government!”
“We’re not in power!”
“I don’t pay attention to the polls.”
“Ok, I’m f*cked. But it’s still some time till the next election so there’s always a chance of a miracle. I mean, remember ‘The Tampa’?”
Recently the Canberra press gallery has attracted some criticism for reporting stories which consist of nothing but quotes from unnamed sources. But surely the events of yesterday vindicate them completely.
Without these sources, nobody would have been aware of the likelihood of the Leadership spill. Then the public would have been shocked to discover that Gillard declared all positions open. In fact, the public may not have even known that an election for the Labor leadership had been held. Or rather, not held, because of the fact that nobody else stood.
Now that the principle of quoting from unnamed sources has been established as a legitimate way of reporting what’s happening, I feel quite comfortable in reporting the following:
A media executive told me that there would be a merger between Fairfax and News Limited called “FairFox”, which will run a campaign supporting Tony’s right to “No”. A senior public servant confirmed that they were ordered to make summer hotter this year to justify the Carbon Tax. A Liberal source confirmed that at least two of their current front bench have died, but the media haven’t noticed yet, so they figured it was best not to point it out. An unnamed environment group told me that they have evidence that there is a Liberal plan to turn brown coal into food. A scientist told me that there are things on Television that are controlling our brains and compelling us to change our behaviour. He referred to them as “ads”. A reporter told me that they have been forbidden from asking Abbott specific questions on “Downton Abbey” because it might demonstrate that his claim that he enjoys watching it is a lie. A Rudd supporter assured me that there would be a challenge today once all the Gillard supporters have gone home.
I can’t verify all of these. Neither can I tell you who said them. But I figured it was my obligation to let you know, because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t!
In the heart of the nation’s capital, in the heart of its Parliament, we have the Canberra Press Gallery and, in its private alcove, the National Press Club. It appears to be the beating heart of the political news media bias that is driving at least half of the country nuts.
What’s obvious is a single announcement of guest appearances by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and, on the following day, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Further down the page there’s a separate notice for the appearance of Mr Abbott. No sign of a separate notice for Ms Gillard, so that looks like favouritism.
What’s not so obvious is a complaint by Neil Spencer, on December 16, 2012. Mr Spencer questions the relatively poor coverage of the outcome of a court case which has become known as Ashbygate. The hearing created sensational front page news. The verdict was buried in the back pages.
Instead of replying directly to Mr Spencer’s post, the FB page administrator referred him to another story in The Daily Telegraph relating to action being taken against the former Speaker, Peter Slipper, by the Federal Police. The administrator makes the rather snide remark: “We thought you would appreciate this one.”
Clearly, the administrator is of the same mind as the Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott. In three separate and long-running attacks on the government Mr Abbott has chosen to ignore the rule of law, the assumption of innocence, and demand that the government leap into a guilty verdict that would advantage him politically and damage our legal and parliamentary process severely (see Lies, damned lies and sour grapes http://bit.ly/UBgzNm).
Mr Spencer’s post, the administrator’s response, and my comment appear in full (so far January 18, 2013 12.45 pm) below.
To all you journalists please read the following:
I am very disillusioned with the media response to the Slipper/Ashby verdict. The whole issue is being played down by most media outlets. I don’t know why. Here is a story that any investigative journalist would love to get their teeth into. But yet there is this apprehension from the print media and on air media alike. The Daily Telegraph reported the verdict of the case on page 17 on 13th December. That in itself is an admission of reporting bias. [Right-wing News Limited commentator] Chris Kenny stated that [Prime Minister] Julia Gillard shouldn’t get involved in this muck raking. My god. After what she has been subjected to from the Opposition and, in particular Tony Abbott, she has every reason to ask Mr Abbott for a full explanation. The Australian people deserve a full explanation.
The Australian people deserve to have balanced reporting on all issues, especially those of a political nature. Is there not one journalist out there who is in the MSM who is prepared to investigate the story of possible conspiracy by Brough and other members of the LNP? Are they afraid there might be repercussions from their employer if they did so? If that is the case, then they are being accessories after the fact by assisting in concealing the truth. The employer would not be the type of employer that a professional journalist should be associated with. Regardless of the outcome of investigations our country will be the better for it.
I just don’t know how reputable journalists can be instructed on what they should or should not investigate. If a story comes to light then a journalist should find out the facts by investigating until such time as the story can go no further. Under the present climate of investigation a Watergate could be carried out in this country and the perpetrators would be able to get away with it. God help Australia.
Like · · December 16, 2012 at 8:28pm
National Press Club of Australia
We thought you would appreciate this one: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/vintage-peter-slipper-accused-of-fraud/story-fndo28a5-1226549859639
January 10 at 9:54am · Like
Neil Spencer raised a valid point. You didn’t address his complaint. Instead, you referred him to another Telegraph story about Federal Police charging Mr Slipper with fraud (their first attempt to charge him fell through, so they went back further in history to find another one).
Your failure to address Mr Spencer’s complaint is pathetic. Referring him to another story (in which Mr Slipper is a defendant and not proven guilty of anything) is even worse. It is worse because your actions in this matter amount to Trial by Media. Your actions tell me that you believe Mr Slipper is not entitled to natural justice, that in the view of the National Press Club he is guilty and must remain so, regardless of the outcome of the Ashby/Slipper court case and the comments and judgment of Justice Rares. 41 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
If there are any further developments, I will add to this article.
Further comment: The Daily Telegraph article that Neil Spencer was referred to was written by News Limited journalists Steve* Lewis and Patrick Lion. Steve Lewis was liaising with James Ashby before he filed his sexual harassment claim against Mr Slipper in the Federal Court. Mr Lewis was summonsed to appear before the court.
[*Steve Lewis was elected to his second term as vice president of the National Press Club in 2009. I did not know that when I wrote this story yesterday.]
The judge ruled that matters related to cab charge documents had nothing to do with the allegations of sexual harassment and were introduced in an attempt to damage Mr Slipper’s character in order to strengthen Mr Ashby’s claim.
The Lewis/Lion story acknowledges Mr Slipper’s court victory. It then refers to Mr Ashby’s allegations re the cabcharge dockets, which the judge has ruled are irrelevant:
The allegations are a major setback for the former speaker, who three weeks ago secured a victory when allegations of sexual harassment were thrown out in the Federal Court. His accuser, former adviser James Ashby, alleged he saw Mr Slipper signing blank Cabcharge dockets on visits to Sydney in early 2012. Those allegations are not the subject of the court action.
Note carefully the last sentence above. If Mr Ashby’s evidence re cabcharge documents has been ruled irrelevant, and “Those allegations are not the subject of the court action.” then what is the point of including the last two sentences in italic above?
In his judgment, Justice Steven Rares said Mr Lewis ”was motivated by the opportunity to obtain newsworthy stories”. He also noted there was ”nothing unusual in a symbiotic relationship between members of the media … and persons involved in politics”.
It may not be obvious to the casual reader, but it is clear to me that Mr Lewis, at least, is continuing his campaign to damage the former Speaker, Mr Slipper — a campaign that began with his liaison with Mr Ashby and is continuing in spite of the Federal Court dismissing the allegations of sexual harassment. Mr Ashby and one of his legal advisors are appealing the judge’s decision and comments on the case.
The judge also was of the opinion that Mr Ashby’s case against Mr Slipper was a conspiracy to bring down the federal Australian government. It has been pointed out by news media commentators and members of the fifth estate (the new, alternative, news media) that while Steve Lewis had his head down feeding stories back to his newspaper he somehow missed one of the biggest political scoops of the past decade.
A story about a conspiracy to bring down the government would not serve the agenda of Mr Lewis’ employer, News Limited, in the same way as a series of stories alleging sexual and other misconduct by Mr Slipper. That’s why this story is being referred to as Ashbygate.
[Additional information, January 19, 2013]
While News Limited media maintains its campaign against the federal government, the Fairfax owned press, notably The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and Melbourne’s The Age, have softened their approach since about the time of the Prime Minister’s so-called “misogyny speech” (see Pennies drop and the balance shifts http://bit.ly/13N69RS).
SMH columnist Richard Ackland in his column yesterday (January 18, 2013) said the investigative bloodhounds of the press have let “Tony Abbott and other leading Coalition ornaments off the hook”.
“There are still so many loose threads dangling off the James Ashby case it is amazing that those dedicated to holding politicians to account have let this one pass.”
Read Mr Ackland’s column here:
Veteran investigative reporter Margo Kingston (a former SMH journalist) also commented on the sudden lack of interest in the Ashbygate affair in her story for Independent Australia yesterday. See: http://bit.ly/ScavyA
Are the actions of Mr Lewis in investigating and reporting the Ashby case as squeaky clean as Justice Rares seems to think they are? Here’s a view by The Global Mail’s Bernard Lagan: