See this post for the background to the GG’s over the top defence of Shanahan, Newspoll, and their omniscience in all matters psephological. Responses to Chris Mitchell’s threat to “go” Peter Brent and the subsequent editorial from Simon Jackman, Aussie Bob, Oz Politics, Rank and Vile, Howard Out, Tug Boat Potemkin, Public Opinion, John Quiggin, The Orstrahyn, please insert caffeine and Poll Bludger.
What’s going on here is twofold, I think. First, we’ve got the bastion of the established punditariat, used to the cosy circle between journos, editors, pollies and pollsters, seeing the barbarians storm the gate. That’s never happened before in an election year.
Secondly, the reaction hasn’t been pretty. Fortunately for the cause of the freedom of speech so cherished by Mr Shanahan, Peter Brent didn’t get a very effective monstering from the Australian’s leader writer. But talk about rhetorical overkill. They appear to be following the same approach beloved by their beloved government - go out all guns blazing against one person who is representative of a widely held position, and hope this is enough to chill criticism and debate. Frankly, this smacks of preciousness, arrogance and a desire to intimidate, and it’s despicable behaviour for a supposedly responsible newspaper.
I’m inclined to agree with Simon Jackman:
He already copped a bit of a serve here, which perhaps only goes to show the growing power of non-traditional media like blogs and Crikey. Frankly, I’m surprised that the mainstream media are paying that much attention. Its all good, in the medium-term, long-term. In addition to learning a lot of statistics and political science, I also learned in graduate school that “opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making…� (Milton, Areopagitica).
I’m sure Crikey will be having something to say about this gem from the Government Gazette, which really does sum up their whole proprietorial attitude towards politics and public debate:
Unlike Crikey, we understand Newspoll because we own it.
Update: See comments from here down on my earlier post for discussion of the disappearance of a post on this issue from Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy.
First! Like being kicked to death by a duck.
Posts have disappeared and reappeared at Blogocracy before, I seem to recall. Hold the ’spiracy for now …
RE: The take down of Tim’s posting.
It’s interesting to compare and contrast how the ABC has handled criticism of bias over the last decade, and the resulting changes that have been forced onto the ABC to satisfy those perceptions, with how The Australian is reacting.
There may well be a non-conspiratorial explanation, Amanda, sure. But since it’s a News Ltd blog, I can understand people raising the question.
Pure Gold. A commenter at Poll Bludger sinks their Preferred PM theory out of Government Gazette’s own mouth.
Oh sure. It wouldn’t surprise me aat all actually. He’s bagged on the GG heaps before of course but they do seem to be taking this issue to heart, poor pets.
I await news from Tim.
I posted a comment on Tim’s next post about an hour ago asking what happened. It’s still in moderation.
I don’t want to jump to any conspiracy conclusions, but it’s an awfully (in)convenient time for a post on that particular issue to go MIA.
d
That latest Gazeditorial is gold!! They’re taking their bat, ball and newspoll and going home.
Ok, Ill say it:
The GG: biggest glass jaw in Australian Media.
I wonder when Greg Sheridan is going to start reading what a lot of us, including me, have said about him in the blogosphere
According to the GG’s linked editorial
“According to The Australian’s political editor, Dennis Shanahan, no Opposition since World War II has won government without two key indicators 12 months out from the election. These are that the Opposition Leader has a lead over the incumbent of at least five points on the question of who would make a better Prime Minister and the party has a nine point lead on a two party preferred basis.”
This is because the preferred PM poll is “a leading indicator” (the GG’s words) of voting intentions: the punters say right now that they will vote Labor, but they are warming again to Howard, so by the time the election rolls around they will vote for the coalition.
Hence Shanahan’s great excitement that Howard trails Rudd only 42-43 as preferred PM in the latest Newspoll.
Well, let’s look at what happened the last time an Opposition was this far ahead in the opinion polls, this close to an election, which was late ‘95 - early ‘96, prior to the 1996 election.
The Coalition won that in a landslide. The Labor Party was massacred. You’d think then, that close to the election Howard would have been way ahead in the preferred PM polls.
There was a newspoll held on Feb 28-29 1996, a mere 2-3 days before the election on March 2 1996. Here are the results for preferred PM
Keating 45%
Howard 40%
Undecided 15%.
How do you like them apples?
An excellent scenario to enjoy.
And if I may: who let ‘em in? In retrospect, this was always going to happen. MSM ‘Journos’ are not infallible, and The Australian has been revealed by a crumbling Howard Government to be the Government Gazette (fabulously effective term, that, congrats) it is, as it lurches for a win - any win; today! now! we must have a win, of any sort!. Of them all, this mob were the most vulnerable.
Then they started playing with propellants; one of them - Price, the good bloke not strictly bound himself - leaked, and the incendiary acid has eaten around the place and all the way up the masthead. These three days have been a slow explosive burn for that paper, unable to see the sense of expectancy created by the postponing of its poll results, and they’re still burning.
Stuck inside, they just don’t see how foolish they all look, right now. It is a sickly weak thing they are persisting with. What will they do tomorrow?
They may wise up and give it all a miss, and move on. But it’s too late. Three days!! It’s a burnt masthead, and that will show for a long time.
In fact, if this sort of thing keeps happening, they should pray for a Rudd victory, because that’s the only thing which will, fully, scrub the outfit clean, as viewed by the one thing they’re hurting in their rush to self-gratify: the reader.
From the Tim Dunlop piece that Darryl posted in the comments on the other post.
And this from the editorial.
Pull the other one Mitchell.
Hmm. Seven comments have appeared out of moderation on the latest Blogocracy post and mine wasn’t among them. It was certainly off-topic, but I’m surprised that there’s no acknowledgment that the post has vanished. That seems out of character.
d
THe Editorial: History a better guide than bias is an extraordinary rant. More like a PhD thesis actually.
Seems like “they” are very worried about losing control of the political message to the blogosphere. Is David going to kill Goliath?
Well, lashing out and attacking people is a normal response for these dudes, but they only do it when they are worried or feel they have too.
Its is obviously unpleasant for them, but Charles Richardson & Peter Brent should take it as a compliment.
Are favourable poll results for Howard as preferred PM one of the “rabbits” he says he hasn’t got?
To go along with:
* Revised terror alert for Indonesia that isn’t
* Aboriginal intervention by policy/army (and land grab)
* Increased border (and doctor immigration) security checks
* Banging on about “staying the course in Iraq to ensure democracy, avoid defeat and protect Australia”
Oh, and everyone’s stopped talking about climate change (one Howard’s major weak points) for a bit too . . .
It may be that the limits of what can be said about News Limited on a News Limited blog have been reached. That there would be such limits is not surprising, and I think I said when Tim launched Blogocracy that there were bound to be tensions in juggling the perspective of an independent blogger and writing for a major news outlet. At the end of the day, they pay Tim (whether as an employee or as a contractor - I don’t know) and that has to have some impact on things. I believe him to be an honourable person, though, and I’m sure if the post has disappeared because of its content (and let’s face it, that’s far more probable than a tech glitch), I’m certain that it wasn’t his call. How he responds to it, though - that does raise some serious questions not just in terms of his personal interests - but also in terms of how viable the position he occupies is.
Tim would be the Blogosphere person I would trust the most to act in the most transparent and “honourable” way.
Just been over to Aussie Bobs site to read the posting regarding Dennis Shanahan and it disapeared before my eyes. Anyone know what is going on?
I’m sure that’s true, Amanda, but again there are constraints from the position from which he writes - if we pull down a post for any reason, people are entitled to question it, and we’d give an explanation. But essentially we’re independent actors - bound to be sure by the collective process of decision making and our policy and also accountability to the LP community, but there’s no layer of corporate interest or editorial supervision in non-MSM blogs. I think that does raise some serious questions, and perhaps they’re being faced for the first time.
No, it’s still there, Orchid:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/12/shanahan-spits-the-dummy/
If you mean Road to Surfdom, then AB’s piece is still there!
I’m having no problem with it, orchid.
Amanda, Ich bin einverstande!
Yes, strangely, I couldn’t get this comment up on Shansy’s blog yesterday.
“Cripes, half a percent jump in Janette’s scone recipe rating in New Idea.
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!�
Not quite the same issue, Lefty E. Nobody expects the “blogs” at The Australian to act transparently. But Tim was promised - as noted in this comment at Surfdom - full editorial control:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/12/shanahan-spits-the-dummy/#comment-319531
Yes it raises serious questions — and those questions were raised and discussed when Tim first went over there. So its nothing new, and maybe (maybe) this is the first crunch moment. It doesn’t appear to me he has any constraints on him up to now. If it is interference … well, let’s wait and see how it plays out. I was not worried about Tim disappointing me when he went over there and I’m not worried now.
I would like some clarification too, as much as anyone.
This desperation from News Ltd is another clear sign of panic in the ranks, panic spreading all the way from the White House to Wall Street, from No. 10 to the PM’s Kirribilli Lodge. It’s a doomsday scenario: the collapse of conservatism across the Western political spectrum.
Today Howard couldn’t even remember the name of a Tasmanian Liberal candidate he was supposedly endorsing:
Obviously our PM has other things on his mind. In future, he might want to try this:
See? Much easier, isn’t it?
I used to comment regularly at Tim’s Surfdom blog but gave it away when he joined News Ltd and then spiked a harmless post from Daryl Mason. As I remember, Tim said he could be more effective blogging from inside the News Ltd tent. Wonder what he’s thinking today?
Amanda, basically I agree with you.
I don’t think the Oz is sensitive to the posts on what passes for their lectures-cum-blogs. (It’s obvious only Matt Price reads the responses to him regularly, if at all).
Rather, the Oz is plainly very peeved that crikey.com is overtaking it on the ‘insiders’ lane. And crikey regularly publishes Peter Brent’s distilled wisdom, most notably on Tuesday as its number one item, with a mocking heading and blurb (I presume by Christian Kerr or Charles Richardson).
Also worth noting how the discussion today has morphed from outrage at the Oz editorial to concern for poor Tim.
The two issues are obviously related, gandhi.
Hivemind!
Right - I didnt realise there was a relationship with News Ltd there. Hmmm, interesting.
Mind you, thats because I dont actually go to other blogs, not since Flutey’s retirement anyway. Must check out this ere blogocracy deal.
Btw, is anyone else having a spanking good time in diese uberstoush mit Der Newsmammon?
I know I am!!
Alons alons enfants de Ozblogistan
le jour de gloire
est arrivee!!
And all that is part of a much bigger global battle between bloggers and the mainstream media and political elites, who have had a monopoly on interpreting the news to the electorate for many decades.
Blogs don’t really represent a threat to true journalists: we still need REAL news stories to “feed off” (as the Oz editorial puts it). But we do provide an interpretation of those news stories which represents a threat to the editorial teams, the rabid columnists, and the politicians whose favour they curry.
Murdoch is well aware of this threat, and I think that’s why he allowed his son to bring Tim Dunlop into News HQ.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, Mark.
““Cripes, half a percent jump in Janette’s scone recipe rating in New Idea.
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!â€?”
I read that comment yesterday but when I went back a short while later I swear the comment count was 3 less than my earlier visit.
Another post by a regular contributor to Blogocracy also seemed to disappear.
I sent an email to the Fairfax newsdesk about this story earlier today and am now getting hits from them as they dig through the dirt.
It will be interesting to see what they make of it, but it does raise the question:
Whos is “feeding off” whom, eh????
I don’t think Murdoch’s son has anything to do with the management of News in Australia, gandhi.
I can’t recall who said this yesterday, but the significant thing about this episode (and I agree, as I said in the post, that it does represent a fightback from those whose presumed access to controlling the news agenda has been questioned) is that the distributed knowledge that can be assembled by the blogosphere (for instance, Possum’s superb demolition of the GG thesis on preferred PM with regression equations) provides better informed analysis than the usual sources relied on by journos and pundits (who’ve become increasingly lazy and partisan over the last decade). This analysis is often employed to make an intervention that is by no means nonpartisan or “unbiassed” but it’s accountable and also very often of far superior quality intellectually and in terms of argumentative force than what the pundits provide. As I said yesterday, and they really have let a few cats out of the bag, they’re far more concerned with gatekeeping and being political players than with analysing and informing.
The astonishing thing as well from all this is what’s revealed by O’Shannessy’s strange comments on Newspoll. Or perhaps he’s being disingenuous. Either way it’s a bad look.
And Guido also reproduces the text of the pulled Blogocracy post:
http://rankandvile.dailyflute.com/?p=418
That’s another thing that those with old media attitudes don’t realise - once something is on the net, through google cache or feed readers, it’s there and can’t be quashed.
A good question!
Hmmm, thanks for the intel Polly.
And thats what I’m talking about! The creeping spectre of censorship.
First they came for our flippant gags… then, yada yada
/ultraleft rouge herring generator
My query about Tim’s missing post was posted to
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/terrorism_and_iraq/
at 1.45pm.
Who will be the first to get a comment posted?
I suspect ‘The Australian’s’ sensitivity on this issue is just as much a reflection of their fear of encroachment on their domain as it is a defence of their supposed journalistic objectivity.
The growing quality of independent and informed commentary in the blogosphere, particularly on sites such as this, threatens their sense of privilege to make ex-cathedra pronouncements on issues which they deem to be of public importance.
As to objectivity, journalists can be highly sensitive to letting the public see how they make their sausages. And that’s what has happened with Shanahan’s transparent and blatant attempts to spin the Newspoll findings the Coalition’s way.
The immediacy and interactivity of the internet, combined with the access it gives readers to original sources, has pulled asunder the curtain which once separated media consumers from the news production process.
Like Luddites smashing textile machines, the writers of The Australian’s thundering editorial are expressing their resentment at a new medium that theatens to undermine their former monopoly position.
That they would attack the rival voices as dilletantes and dabblers only reinforces the sense of threat they feel.
Oops .. 12.45 pm I should say ….
Spoke too soon .. it is now up. Tim .. where are you?
There are a stack of comments on that post asking about the missing one now, Aidan.
And well said, Mr Denmore.
Doesn’t that just mean they haven’t been told yet?
Isn’t that the definition of a Tory?
As for the blatant editorial control - just goes to show what an embarrassment the lifting of cross media regulation is going to be.
That aside, its an editorial - so its an opinion piece, not journalism and I’m inclined to agree with them on the Preferred PM rating. All we have to do to understand that is revisit Latham or even the prior opinion of Keating.
It is important to keep in mind, most people are not political pundits. They will not know who their local member is or what they’ve done and I believe most decide their vote on the personality of the two main party leaders.
ROTFL.
The only “media power” demonstrated by this episode is the Australian’s ability to provoke a furor of earnest analysis by printing speculative poppycock. Exaggerating Howard’s comeback is a function of the media’s economic interest in Always Having Something Important to Say. Nothing to do with some scary, insidious quasi-conspiracy.
Has anyone seen the Daily Telegraph’s cover today? A giant photo of Howard slumping over, with a massive headline “Sydney walks away from Howard: The Prime Minister’s Powerbase starts to Crumble”. This is more of a beat-up than The Australian thing, and it comes from perhaps the most solidly pro-Howard News media source in Australia.
There are several reasons why the poll beat-up has no political consequence:
1. There is no chance of a leadership challenge, regardless of what the occasional psycho MP says.
2. Liberal bigwigs are too smart to be swayed by hocus pocus analysis of 2% movements.
3. If they aren’t, more fool them.
4. The Liberal’s ‘Labor Menace’ scare campaign gains mileage by emphasising the prospect of Labor victory, hence the PM’s “We Face Annilihation”.
5. Noone cares about polls for more than 3 days anyway.
Despite exaggerating, The Australian did have some legitimate points: Howard cannot be written off, he is likely to make up some ground, and he has done so in the past.
All the extensive analytical critique provided by bloggers only helps the Australian get webhits and shift papers - and confirms its hegemonic legitimacy as the political discourse generator. I reckon they’re in hysterics at News. They even throw out obvious bait like “we understand it because we own it”, knowing full well a bazillion bloggers will frantically quote it as evidence of Murdoch World Domination, thereby contributing to such a domination.
The poll exaggeration is simply an example of the human brain’s tendency to overpredict and to imagine patterns where there aren’t any. This is also exhibited by bloggers who have read so much hermeneutics of suspicion they start to suffer paranoid delusion.
David, I’ll repeat what I said yesterday. This has nothing to do with influencing public opinion, and not much to do with selling papers. It’s about power.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/11/government-gazette-fights-back/#comment-383819
The continued salience of that power - and the ability to operate within a feedback loop with the pollies - depends on credibility, and some sort of mystagogical notion that they can interpret the polls correctly. That’s what’s at stake. That’s why there’s so much anxious gatekeeping going on.
And they may well be in hysterics at the GG, but not the kind you mean. The wounded and bullying tone of what’s been written over the past few days is very plain.
Huh, Vee?
Keating swung back to a lead on preferred PM before the 96 election. It did bugger all for Labor’s vote! See all the links to the various psephological sites in the two posts.
Get your hand off it, ghandi. Keep your personal issues about your alleged mis-treatment at RTS to yourself. Nobody else, including Daryl Mason, gives f**k about that ancient and very trivial history.
Learn to pick your battles, and walk away from the ones that don’t matter.
Another story that you’re unlikely to see prominently in the GG or any other Murdoch rag.
Sorry, try this.
Re: Road to Surfdom post. Got it know. Went there three times before and it wouldn’t come up. Must be my computer. Thought it was a bit weird with Blogocracys post being pulled as well. Thanks for checking for me.
Heh, Hilker. The younger, more militant Mahatma Gandhi would have approved.
Same issue covered by Crikey here . Is it my imagination, or has Crikey improved dramatically in recent weeks? Any reason, Crikey insiders?
Mitchell in his editorial at The Australian comes across as a scared and nervous man. He clearly wants to undermine any credibility that is being directed towards the political blogstream here, but he’s just pushed the insurgency out into the mainstream.
My take and summary of all this is up on ‘The Orstrahyun’ :
http://www.theorstrahyun.blogspot.com/
The mainstream media will put a heavy focus on blogs, new media, YouTube, during this year’s election, and Mitchell’s editorial will be a starting point for many journos who will be dipping their toes in to have a look around.
They are going to find a world very different to the one Mitchell describes, I believe. And the political blogstream here will grow by leaps and bounds.
Good to see the editor in chief of The Australian feeling so threatened and nervous about the impact of Australian blogs. We must be doing something right.
Posts over at Tim’s blogocracy have ground to a halt.
I seem to have been banned from posting on The Australian blogs, possibly because of my incurable habit of pointing out to Mr.Shanahan the considerable degree of bias present in his work, and The Oz’s staff in general. I’ve had about a dozen goes today, and no luck. Nothing like a free society, is there!
David, your points raised beginning with this:
.. would carry some weight if The Australian published to a readership which treated politics with a deeper analysis. Other papers are not going to run on the basis of a GG puff piece, so it’s not publishing to them.
It comes down to its readership. These are “punters”: people who skim across the political game. You would be aware of the axiom that a pollie has to tell the same thing, endlessly, to reach these peoples’ centre of action. These readers are interested in other things, and take quickgut impressions with the skim and continue on.
That analysis you are referring to, and much else, exists in non-MSM blogs. It would be interesting to know some stats on how many people read blogs in Australia: certainly, most people I know from many walks of life, including professionals and clients whose businesses are pop-riveted to politics, don’t read blogs and if they are aware of them have a very minor passing regard for them, and one which may not be altogether positive.
The GG these last three days was attempting, not to provoke in-depth analysis (something it would rather have avoided), but to puff up Howard’s electoral life.
One reason why this is quite a unique moment in MSM is that, because the GG has its own blogs, it had to run the avalanche of negativity against it’s ridiculous puff, for the very same reason that Blogocracy is being put in the blog-reader’s sights today. The GG could not spike all those negative comments: there’d be an outcry.
So here it is on the one hand aimed at its politically toe-deep readership, and on the other, being held to account by a relatively tiny response through its blogs.
And what does it do? It floods the major toe-deep readership with what, to the latter, appears as self-defence - a weakness, given a) it purports to “inform” and b) it admits to wanting to persuade - and sooky self-righteousness. This is not only incredibly poor form, it indicates a loss of way, loss of integrity, loss of command, loss of focus.
It’s only a moment in MSM challenges, and will pass, returning to the normal thing it does, yet it is interesting for what it is, and is well worth assessment. The GG has been wounded, however, and is clearly hurting. That pain has been passed onto its readership through its further attempts at self-righteousness, today, and the take out the readers get is one that is not good.
A perceptive comment, Robert. After all freedom of speech is all very well so long as it doesn’t impinge too much on the authority and power of those who have set themselves up as masters of the agenda.
Cheers, adrian. I should have added that The Australian is doing anything but laughing, right now.
Incidentally, this is not a new phenomenon. Somewhere, lost in the MSM abyss, there is a story explaining how as little as two call-back respondents on, say, the John Laws program, can within days have legislation through the NSW parliament.
One thing begets another.
To take advantage of this moment, it is important beyond immediate view that people like Trev above express on record that their attempts to be published at a MSM blog is being (give it time to be sure) censored. Get enough of those, and considerable weight grows - in time - for the MSM blogs to come clean about what they’re there for.
If the MSM blogs exist to allow readership comment in all its glory, they’ll have to publish unwanted material, and find themselves sharpening up their “journalism” as a matter of course, OR, if they’re there to provide free survey feedback, we’ll know.
Speak up!
I couldn’t help passing the Possum econometrics analysis to an old lecturer of mine. This is what he said:
“Interesting article. I’m not sure I agree with the conclusions, but the correlations which come out in the regressions are interesting. I think that other control variables probably explain people’s votes and leaving these out probably biases the regressions in terms of “causal” interpretations. However, the point about PPM being a lagging, not leading, indicator is a good one.”
Mr Denmore (12 July 2007 at 12:56 pm) puts it well, but not quite well enough:
“The immediacy and interactivity of the internet, combined with the access it gives readers to original sources, has pulled asunder the curtain which once separated media consumers from the news production process.
Like Luddites smashing textile machines, the writers of The Australian’s thundering editorial are expressing their resentment at a new medium that theatens to undermine their former monopoly position.”
The only point I would change about that statement is that News Limited never have had a “monopoly” on news reporting and the immediacy and interactivity of the internet certainly does in no way create an environment of “pure competition”.
Rather, there’s two key points on which Ed from The Australian exposes himself to misunderstanding.
The first does not apply exclusively to him.
Ed says in attack: “Our critics howl only when the heat is being applied to Labor”, while saying in defence, “The Australian is not beholden to any one side of politics and recent election outcomes vindicate our treatment of our polls.”
I have no doubt about The Australian’s ability to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” in regards to attention to detail and achieving outcomes, but this still doesn’t make them infallible.
Proof of this is the fact that it takes a defense such as Ed’s to finally get him to say the following:
“Rather than being a mouthpiece for the Government, as some online news sites would suggest, we have been harsh critics of Mr Howard. But most of our criticism has been from the Right, chiding the Government for being overly generous with middle class welfare and reform shy.”
Unlike others here, a much bigger achievement for me than getting Ed to defend against the “Government Gazette” rhetoric being used on the blogs (by effectively accusing all online dissenters as collectively adding to a “Labor Gazette”) is getting him to acknowledge his criticisms of Government are “anchored to the Right”.
Just consider all that use of the word “Left” in Ed’s columns without there being equal mention of its opposite definition.
Ed wants to assure you that his publication is able to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” without ever finding itself anchored to a party line.
I’m of the opposite view. I’m here to “discredit the journalistic myth” that declaring your party line disables you of being able to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s”.
The idea that being anchored to labourite thinking is synonymous with being anchored to the Left is a nonsense. Just as it is also a nonsense that the far reaches of the Left and the Right have nothing in common.
What’s actually wrong with anchoring your politics on a certain position as long as it doesn’t become a closed system of thinking?
The “very little practical experience of politics”, to use Ed’s words, that I have been engaged in to develop independent thinking is not based on being anchored to the Left or Right, but standing firm in my 2006 support of Kim Beazley when “almost” the entire Mainstream Media took the same position.
Ed claims with his second questionable point that:
“They (the bloggers) should not kid themselves they are engaged in proper journalism and real reporting.”
I don’t doubt there’s truth in this statement, but Ed must be careful not to equate that truth with discouraging creators of new media from developing a mix of inquiry that “questions, challenges and engages”, even if (i) you can’t define it exclusively as journalism and (ii) whatever you do call it, it has the implication of changing what journalists do.
…From Justin
Kymbo, your old lecturer is spot on.
Those regressions weren’t about explaining what “is�, but clearly showing what “isn’t�.
Explaining what “is� is a far harder and more complex activity altogether.
Mr Denmore is right. As I posted earlier, this dummy spit by The Australian is a pimple-burst in its ongoing battle with crikey.com for inside influence.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh deary deary me.
Despite the GG’s fearless, fiercely independent
government mouthpiecesenior political correspondent this week assuring us all that the polls are on the turn and, as a result, our Beloved Leader is practically a shoo-in for another period of wise and firm leadership, along comes Paul Bongiorno on tonight’s Ten News to ruin the party.The precise phrase he uttered in relation to the Cabinet room’s response to Tuesday’s poll figures was:
No doubt we can confidently expect Shanahan’s breathlessly independent account of Cabinet insiders’ concerns tomorrow morning.
On another note, there appears to have been some sort of weird technical glitch affecting his blog. Only 16 posts yesterday, 17 today.
There’s a lot of technical glitches going around at News, Christine.
Wot? But surely Cabinet believes the Gazette’s all-seeing commentators on TEH SIGNS of the 2nd coming of the bounce?
After all, they’re political pros!
Puzzled, of Northcote.
Oh my. It appears that Enemy Combatant over at Surfdom http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/12/shanahan-spits-the-dummy/#comment-319471 has given a certain respected Canberra political correspondent the unfortunate appellation “Shill� Shanahan: Ace Stenographer
It would be a real shame if that ever caught on.
Actually I can see that as the title of the movie of Dennis’ life starring Rob Schneider of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo fame.
I saw this over at poll bludger.
Anyone with further info?
8th grade Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
just heard from a source that tim dunlop has resigned from news ltd. due to them pulling his blog today.
Well, rumour has it that Tim has just resigned from News Ltd after today’s fiasco with his blog. If true, maybe we will see him based at Road to Surfdom again.
What makes the reporters of the ‘Australian’ so special? We’re out here, w/ the REAL people…we listen to their gripes, we hear their words, we get a sense of how they really feel. When talking to us, they don’t feel like they’re being listened to by some Government lacky & troll on the other end of the phone as some do when doing surveys.
There’s more fear in the community than some realise. Particularly now ‘Workchoices’ & the new ‘Terror Laws’ have hit the scene.
As most on these blogs realise, if you wanna get a sense of how people feel, sit & have lunch or dinner w/ them, have a glass of wine…get ‘em relaxed. Polls too often get it wrong because they don’t recognise that many feel compelled to say the most politically correct, most ideologically acceptable thing in front of their partners, families, those who might rely on them.
But, in that booth you’re on your own as a voter…you’re free to shove the angst & cage away…for one moment in your life you can rebel. Give ‘em the finger. Go w/ what you think is right, not what the mainstream media tell you…not what is the latest ‘in’ convo started up by the ad-driven morning shows…you vote related to what’s important for you, current for you…not what some show tells you, not what that person always leaning over your shoulder, that eye in the sky, that surveillance camera, that parent who fails to think outside of ‘the box’ keeps on about.
That’s why polls eventually derail…hit the wall…get lost in a maze…because they reflect the ‘controlled’, ‘fearful’ individual…not the ‘free voter’.
Screw ‘The Australian’…they’re just a bunch of people guessing just like everyone else…they know no more & no less than YOU…& your mates…& associates…on the Blogs…’cause like them, we report what we hear, what we’ve learnt, the facts we’ve researched…& then readers can come up w/ their own conclusions…insights…decisions.
It’s called Free Speech & Democracy in action. If that’s the enemy of News Ltd…then more fools them.
If Tim resigned because News pulled his post, then good on him, I say.
Would also add to the own goalishness of the Mitchell/Shanahan shenananigans.
I like “Shillâ€? Shanahan: Ace Stenographer but I also enjoy the brevity and accuracy of the Shamahan tag I’ve noticed people using, particularly in light of his recent claim that he merely seeks out “just the facts, ma’am” like Joe Friday. What Shamahan is pleased to call his integrity was bought and paid for so cheaply and so long ago, that calling him a whore does a disservice to The Oldest Profession.
Shanahanigans?
From The Government Gazette
dummyspiteditorial.By the GG’s own measure, therefore, Shamaham’s spin was the opposite of “good journalism” because it sought to subtract from “society’s pool of knowledge”.
Splendid stuff, Online News Commentariat!
This movie has already been made: The Mouse that Roared.
John Quiggin on “The Oz’ Meltdown”:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/12/meltdown-at-the-oz-part-ii/
Adding a thought to this possible development: if Tim has resigned, it would throw open the unusual story where a poor error of editorial judgement doused in inflammatory need to write a puff piece for Howard wrapped up in a vomitable sausage sizzle story was torn down by its own blogs.
Tim’s resignation adds a poignancy to it, though the story lives in its own right, but should his resignation have happened it could tip it over into Fairfax for a Saturday column, having been given a point-of-difference edge. This difference is that the Fairfax political discourse, while crookish often enough too, hasn’t stooped to the low level GG just did, and that its own blogs are traveling I would assume happily enough. And it would, by publishing a story on this, be reflecting an apposite occurrence in this year’s electioneering discourse.
From a glimpse assessment, it would appear that the GG refers negatively to Fairfax publications more often than the reverse, however, Fairfax is happy to have a shot when its timing and thrust is good. Just a thought. But this story could have a bit to run yet, and could blow up some more.