A couple of weeks ago it was Alexander Downer’s successor for the (formerly) safe Liberal seat of Mayo, Jamie Briggs, who was published at Five Star‘s News Ltd blog ranting at Kevin Rudd without being required to clearly declare his own interest on the page in question.
Yesterday they did it again. This time it was someone named Scott Morrison, another Liberal MP you’ve never heard of, who had a vacuous anti-Rudd rant published (this time on the stupid Hicks/Hu comparison) without anywhere on the page noting that he is a currently-serving Liberal MP. To find that out you would have to click through to his biography.
Apparently this is just the way it’s going to be at Penbo’s online punching house. Liberal MPs you’ve never heard of, writing disingenuous political attacks on their opponents without being required to clearly identify themselves. How hard would it be to have “Liberal MP for Cook” under his name?
I think News Ltd can do better. And it should.
45 Comments
And have there been any other rants from secret pollies of political persuasions NOT on the Right? I may be wrong, but I doubt there have been. All the non-Liberal comment I’ve seen on there has been clearly identifiable, such as Maxine McKew.
So we know exactly what The Poonce is now: another propaganda arm of the Libs. Really, this ordure must have been extruded in the editorial suite of The Australian; it’s got their smell all over it.
I think News Ltd can do better.
I don’t, compradge.
All of the author bios are at the bottom of the page. Are you aware of what “scrolling down” means?
All of the author bios are at the bottom of the page.
if they can put the bios at the bottom of the page, why can’t they attach their bio/affiliation etc to the actual post they’ve written? This is the most logical place for it to appear.
Ah yes and when Is “Tobias” going to reveal who he actually is when he posts on this site?
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this Jeremy.
“All of the author bios are at the bottom of the page.”
No, they’re not. There’s a “punching on today” section which includes the most recent posters, but that doesn’t necessarily include the post in question – it certainly doesn’t after a day has passed. But the post is still there.
Iain – Tobias isn’t a sitting MP writing screeds attacking the other side without declaring his involvement. He’s just an ordinary member of the public. The situations are entirely different.
I’m sure if he had a personal interest in a matter on which he was writing he’d declare it.
Crikey’s own Plane Talking blog is also posting one-sided and unsourced articles by anonymous authors: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/07/12/the-f-35-jsf-predator-or-prey/ I hope that this blog goes after them.
Liberal MPs you’ve never heard of, writing disingenuous political attacks on their opponents without being required to clearly identify themselves. How hard would it be to have “Liberal MP for Cook” under his name?
Is this like painting by numbers. You don’t think people would be able to distinguish a good or bad argument by itself?
“Crikey’s own Plane Talking blog is also posting one-sided and unsourced articles by anonymous authors”
Sorry, what do you know about Ben Sandilands that we don’t? Does he have a personal stake in the subject of his post? You know, like a LIBERAL MP not declaring their interest in a political bash at Rudd?
And as far as I can see from your link, Ben’s bio details are directly on the blog post in question. Morrison’s weren’t.
Half right as usual. I did one post yesterday on crikey and it came up subject to review. Whereas other posts of mine in similar vain came up staight away. Could it be because that post listed examples of left wing corruption equal to that on the right?
For all those who defend the the Punch practice of not attaching partisan MPs’ bios to their actual posts you have a reason why this should continue? IS it not better to just insert a bio to what the person has written?
btw – look through About Us an the author details, and you’ll see the punch leans towards Morrison, Bronnie and Briggs for contributions.
What?
Jeremy
When you post about anyone writing about politics and not very overtly declaring who they are and what stake they have in the debate it is laughable that you run out a line like this:
In the first instance the MP in question did make it clear in his OP ed piece just who he is in the author bio, the fact that he does not do so prominently enough for you is as I suggested earlier a molehill BUT since moving his commentary from a very low volume blog to the more public venue like this one “Tobias” has taken enough of a “step up” in prominence for the ” he is only a private citizen” line to be rather stupid and , dare I say an example of “intellectual dishonesty”. So if you are arguing for a more fulsome disclosure from one author of political opinion then if you are going to be consistent and intellectually honest you must argue the same thing for your fellow PP author who posts under a pseudonym.
No, the MP in question DID NOT make it clear in the op ed piece who he is. You have to click to another page to see it.
So it was one mouse click away, that is a darn sight MORE open and straight forward than your Pseudonymous fellow writer isn’t it? which is the point that you ignore.
before you complain about the mote in someone else’s eye first remove the log from your own…
Iain, Tobias is not a serving MP writing about a political opponent. If his occupation were related to what he writes here, he’d disclose it. Morrison’s clearly is, and he didn’t.
There’s also a big difference between Tobias writing on this blog day in, day out, as one of the three authors of the site, and Morrison coming in as a guest commenter at Punch and not identifying himself. Most readers of this site are aware of who Tobias, Scott and I are. Most readers of Punch would not be aware of who Morrison is.
Who, I repeat, is A SITTING LIBERAL MP.
Really Jeremy, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Each blog post contains a function to click on the author bio to find out who the author is, just like your own blog. As a matter of fact, when I click on your bio on this site, nothing comes up. I have to click on the “About Pure Poison” button to find out who you are.
While the two Liberal MPs you mention are obscure and most people wouldn’t know who they are, most people outside of NSW wouldn’t know who Mark Arbib is either, and he had a pretty partisan post a while back (not that I disagreed with his sentiments, mind you): http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/frightening-the-life-out-of-voters-debt-scare-campaign/
All authors are treated equally. I don’t know who many of these people are, so it’s up to me to find out – by clicking on the author’s name. Your criticism would be better directed at the content of those Liberal MPs’ posts, which are stupid in the extreme.
“most people outside of NSW wouldn’t know who Mark Arbib is either, ”
Anybody who frequents blogs like this ought to know who Mark Arbib is!
“While the two Liberal MPs you mention are obscure and most people wouldn’t know who they are,”
All the more reason to be up front with their credentials.
“I have to click on the “About Pure Poison” button to find out who you are.”
You’d have a point if they were say,errrr….ummm Members of Parliament! Thing is they’re private citizens, not SITTING Members of Parliament. It really doesn’t matter who they are!
“Anybody who frequents blogs like this ought to know who Mark Arbib is”
Why? The Punch is not a political blog. It’s not a very good one either, but that’s beside the point.
“All the more reason to be up front with their credentials.”
I don’t know who many of the commentators on the blog are, so why aren’t you asking for their credentials upfront?
“You’d have a point if they were say,errrr….ummm Members of Parliament! Thing is they’re private citizens, not SITTING Members of Parliament. It really doesn’t matter who they are!”
In the posts by the two Liberal MPs that I have read – gagging all the way – they mention who are they are. I agree that it doesn’t matter who the authors of the Pure Poison blog are, so why should it be an issue for the Punch?
Accusations of double standards are all very well and good if you can back them up with evidence. All contributors to the blog are treated equally. That most of them are full of sh*t is, again, beside the point. Rupert Murdoch is not reading The Punch.
“In the posts by the two Liberal MPs that I have read – gagging all the way – they mention who are they are.”
Where?
The analogy with MPs writing partisan puff pieces at the punch with toby here is incredibly dishonest and entirely disingenous. For a start, Toby doesn’t stand to benefit personally from any of his arguments or political stances here (I’m guessing it’s unpaid because the 3 of them seem to have day jobs?). All the MPs writing in newspapers and on commercial blogs do so to reach an audience that they influence wrt to their party’s or government’s policy positions. They are also furthering their own public image and the voters perception of them – direct benefit, especially in the case of those you’ve never heard of.
And I see that nobody defending the Punch is able to answer my very simple question: why do you object to their bios being attached to their actual post, and easily viewable to readers when they are reading the post itself?
When you click on this:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/trust-the-voters-why-not-voluntary-voting/
You get this:
“Last year I had the honour of being elected to the Australian Parliament by the people of Mayo in South Australia.”
Then when you click on this:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/jamie-briggs/
You get this:
“In early 2006 Jamie Briggs was appointed to a senior adviser’s role in the PM’s office, one of the youngest ever to hold that title.
Following the Howard Government’s election loss in 2007, he won a by-election held in 2008 to replace the retiring Alexander Downer in the Federal seat of Mayo.”
Yes, he sounds like a complete d*ck to me too, but that doesn’t negate the point. All posters are treated equally.
I must admit that one of the posts I have enjoyed most on The Punch was by someone called Rob Mills. I had to click on his name to find out who he was, and while I was suitably embarrassed when I did so, it made the post much more worthwhile.
And when you click on the two articles to which I referred, it does not tell you that the people who’ve written them are sitting Liberal MPs.
So being a Liberal is now a high crimes against Humanity, Leftie? Is that how you’d characterize it?
No, you idiot, not even close.
So what exactly is your gripe then? That the paper mortally sinned for not identifying their party affiliation? Big deal
If the argument is decent it will hold up on its own merits.
Stop trying to create a dust storm by shaking the bed spread, leftie.
and still the objections to author bios attached to the actual post, but with no sensible or logical reason why except for a torrent of abuse!
You’ve really hit a nerve somewhere Jeremy, I just wish the vocal minority would articulate their preferences for the current dishonest Punch arrangement in a logical manner, or justify their opposition to a more transparent arrangement.
I won’t hold my breath.
The post makes it very clear. The point is that sitting MPs should be identifying themselves when having political rants published, and that any publication – whether online or off – that intends to be taken seriously should ensure that they do.
It’s sneaky and misleading for MPs to be pretending to be merely ordinary members of the public.
Leftie:
Almost every day we see or at least I did see (until I stopped having it delivered) an op-ed, or several at a time, in The Age tagging the worthless leftist swill with
“xxxxxxxxx is a Melbourne based writer” when it should have said “Guy Rundle is a partisan hack disguising himself as an unaffiliated, even handed dispassionate opinion maker”. Should The Age identify Rundle as a left wing hack and inform the readers that his opinions are about as even handed as any partisan left-wing hack or not?
Should the ABC offer up the real credential of the leftwing nutcases posing as dispassionate observers or not?
Should say Kerry O’pol Pot’s bio explicitly mention the fact that he was a Whitlam staffer?
You seriously can’t see the difference between someone’s PRESENT OCCUPATION and their previous employment history? Between A SITTING LIBERAL MP and a journo who once worked for a political party?
I’m more than happy to answer your question leftie, but first I think you ought to answer mine.
thanks
The answer to each of yours is – no. Such a requirement would be unworkable.
I think writers should openly declare their present interests as they relate to any particular published piece, though. Like they are generally required to do in newspapers.
Get over it Jeremy. Declaring interests is a Leftist scam designed to silence the Right. So what if that scientist who disputes Global Warming is on a board of an organisation that receives money from Exxon Mobil?
That would be the Sydney-ised chattering classes’ equivalent of ‘lefty’, kinda like how footy is always “footie” when in Sydney?
And you think Kerry O’Brien shouldn’t have declared where he worked for the longest time and was basically shamed into it by the pressure that was put on the partisan, {derogatory statements about character removed – Toby}?
Furthermore, Guy Rundle is an obvious partisan hack… how on earth could his by-line be…. “Guy Rundle is a Melbourne writer”, when he’s simply nothing more than a head-kicker for the left.
I actually agree with you about the Libs. However I think you’ll find that it’s your side of the fence that is more at fault than anyone on the right.
——————–
John (Unsure of his) surname says:
So what if that scientist who disputes Global Warming is on a board of an organisation that receives money from Exxon Mobil?
So what if he is, John? What makes you think a person sitting on the board of Exxon would have changed his view simply because he was offered the board seat. Have you given it some thought that quite possibly the person would have those views prior to joining.
Here’s your task…. You need to show one person that has changed their views simply because they received private funding. In other words they had opposite views before… as in… they were raging catastrophists prior to getting say an Exxon seat and then turned sceptical.
If you can’t demonstrate that then you argument is just badly thought slop {derogatory statements about character removed – Toby}.
shorter tee: LOOK OVER THERE!!1!
Hint: guy rundle has nothing to do with this thread.
Time for you to get a life kid.
Confessions:
I’m using Rundle as an example to illustrate the weakness in leftie’s arguments. In any event it’s a bit rich to whine about using Rundle as you’ve done numerous times when the whole raison d’etre (that’s French) for this blog is to somehow demonstrate the stupidity of several right wingers.
I’ve got Guy under my arm and I ain’t letting go as he’s a keeper
it’s a bit rich to whine about using Rundle as you’ve done numerous times
name these times or I will be justified in labelling you a liar.
If your only comments in response to everything written here are to express your obvious hatred of Guy Rundle you will expend an awful lot of unecessary energy, and show yourself to be a know-nothing incomprende (that’s spanglish) pushing a very large barrow of vitriol and hatred against someone who is not even an author of this blog.
Now, what is your objection to the punch attaching it’s writers bios to the actual post they’ve written? Hint: “I hate guy rundle” is neither an intelligent or logical response.
I don’t hate Guy Rundle. I think his writings and ideas are superbly ignorant and ought to be a testament that there possibly is a dark side to public education.
name these times or I will be justified in labelling you a liar.
Label me what you like, but you have complained, doofus. Quite a few of you have in fact, which makes it more than a little amusing on a blog that was created and dedicated to poke/criticize others.
If your only comments in response to everything written here are to express your obvious hatred of Guy Rundle you will expend an awful lot of unecessary energy, and show yourself to be a know-nothing incomprende (that’s spanglish) pushing a very large barrow of vitriol and hatred against someone who is not even an author of this blog.
As I said I don’t hate Rundle at all. In fact I want to see more of his writing
.
Oh so I shouldn’t criticize Rundle because he doesn’t author the blog here. Please.. That has to be the stupidest argument I’ve ever seen. In fact that would be thrown out of a critical English course.
Does Bolt, Bolt, Blair, Akerman, Albrechtsen “author” any part of this blog, you nimbus?
Now, what is your objection to the punch attaching it’s writers bios to the actual post they’ve written? Hint: “I hate guy rundle” is neither an intelligent or logical response.
You’re not very quick on the uptake, are you, Confess.? I have already answered that above.
Saying “Bolt” twice is much like Piers talking the loudest on Insiders.
but you have complained,
just as I thought, you can’t substantiate the things you say, all you do is throw about statements designed to attack people, and make claims about other readers’ comments without being able to back them up when you are called on it. This makes you a liar and of course we always knew you are a troll.
I have already answered that above.
Rubbish! all you’ve done is attack jeremy and post irrelevent LOOK OVER THERE!!1! comments. You’ve not articulated any rational or logical argument against the Punch attaching writer bios to their actual posts, and I seriously doubt you could mount any rational argument that didn’t involve hurling statements of abuse to other readers: it is your comments, more than anyone else’s that are edited to “remove derogatory statements about character.” That in itself shows you aren’t here to engage meaningfully with the content, but are here for whatever nefarious, ego-stroking purposes appeal to people like you.
Go back to bolt’s or ackerman’s where you can inhabit space with people who share your values and will find your abusive, ranting idiocies twee.
“This makes you a liar and of course we always knew you are a troll.”
This has been my experience as well (the stuff he made up about Hick’s and failed to quantify for example) thus I treat tee as such and refuse to feed him, hint hint
Confess,
Go back to bolt’s or ackerman’s where you can inhabit space with people who share your values
That’s right, this is a shared values site. lol…. values. hahahaha
Go screw a lemon. I’ll stay wherever I want and go where i want.
RobJ:
I lied about Hicks? Are you hallucinating?