Chris Kenny released from News Ltd paywall, featured as a quote on somebody’s blog
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but according to an article in The Weekend Australian by a former Liberal staffer named Chris Kenny (now released from the News Ltd paywall* and without dignity reduced to a slab of quoted text on someone else’s blog), the Canberra press pack are A BUNCH OF STUPID LEFTISTS who miss important stories BECAUSE THEY’RE LEFTISTS like the time that Kevin Rudd was about to be overthrown because Labor couldn’t outspend the mining industry in an advertising campaign and the journos didn’t know ahead of Labor MPs what was going to happen WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
(I know they deny being lumped together as “leftists”, but have you seen how unsupportive they can be of Coalition policies? Exactly.)
And they were all so easily distracted by sideshow politics – unlike The Australian. Take this list of things the Coalition would’ve liked them to talk more about:
Why didn’t they properly scrutinise the NBN or the Coalition’s climate change policy, or the viability of the UNSC bid? Why didn’t they harangue the Prime Minister into releasing the draft Murray-Darling plan? Why didn’t they investigate the merits of the proposed health reforms or the need for continued government stimulus spending?
Why didn’t they enquire more deeply into the massive costing hole in the Coalition’s campaign platform rather than leaving it till the very end of the campaign when it was too late for most voters to hear about it? BECAUSE THEY’RE INCOMPETENT LEFTISTS. And also the Liberals promised it was fine.
Further, if you look back on Rudd’s time in office you can find lots of people who were critical of him and said he should go JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED LATER. And yet the journalists couldn’t pick it ahead of time! With the benefit of hindsight, how foolish they can be made to look.
Fortunately, “readers of The Australian”, you always knew better.
*On the day of publication, you could only read part of the rant on the free website. If you wanted the rest – and who wouldn’t – you had to buy the paper.
The interesting phrase there for me is “harangue the Prime Minister into releasing the draft Murray-Darling plan”. An interesting view of what party insiders view the press’ role to be, and somewhat undercuts the legitimacy of any point which they might have made.
I remember another insider (from the other side) once perjoratively described Michelle Grattan as printing uncritically anything anyone leaked to her, which is an interesting spin on the determinedly neutral public posture of that particular journalist.
Instead of complaining that a News Limited journalist has accused his comtemporaries of partisianship shouldn’t you show how the arguments he uses in his piece are flimsy? Otherwise, the opening of this thread seems like a rant appealing to ITS OWN SET OF PREJUDICES.
PS I don’t follow links over into Hardware as there’s enough grief in the world already, IMHO.
My Conservative mates often say to me “news.ltd is such a left wing news organisation”….. They are dead serious & straight faced. Just how far to the right does one need to be to feel News.ltd is a left wing news organisation? Lets ignore the fact for a sec that there is no left wing version of the Australian. There is several political bloggers, all of which are conservative & even Tony Abbott has his own blog on there FFS. 90% good coverage of the Coalition, 10% bad = left wing.
@Teecha
“shouldn’t you show how the arguments he uses in his piece are flimsy?”
To do that would require an OP 3 times longer than the letter that is being discussed. I’m more of the opinion that there wasnt a factual sentence in the whole letter. Just partisan propaganda.
And don’t forget how the stupid leftist press gallery refused to pontificate on Gillard’s distracting earlobes, poor dress sense and her inability to be a role model because of her marital status and childlessness. You could only get that kind of insightful reportage at the Oz.
I also don’t see any mention by Kenny that Shanahan was getting leaks from the faction bosses that there were moves to topple Rudd, presumably the only reason he was speculating about a leadership change in the Oz.
If this blog was a genuine analysis of journalism, it would have covered journalism’s biggest failure in some way. It should have ‘exposed’ the complete blindness of entire sections of media.
The few arguments presented in this piece perpetuate the apologetic media spin:
-’Rudd was overthrown because Labor couldn’t outspend the mining industry’. Please. Firstly, it was government money spent on ads, not Labor’s! And my memory is that the govt spent more on ads, but either way they were comparable spends. To suggest the debate, and Rudd’s credibility, was lost on the number of ads, and not the merits of the issue is ridiculous analysis. MPs turned on their leader due to irecoverable policy failures, not the advertising budget of the (party) government.
-’Journos didn’t know ahead of labor MPs what was going to happen’. But the American embassy knew Gillard was preparing to challenge 12 months in advance. If only our media was as accurate. I expect journos who work full time reporting on MPs to have a deeper understanding of all MPs relationships with and attitudes towards their leader. The off the record reality of government, and insightful analysis, is what should be expected. Reproducing media releases and believing the spin of cabinet members is not analysis.
-To compare this massive journalistic failure with the reporting of Coalition costings is ludicrous. Besides, the coalition received more scrutiny than the ALP in 2007.
-’Lots of people were critical of Rudd and said he should go’. So many in fact that none are cited. You will find that the few who were critical, were attacking him for not being progressive or green enough. None could imagine what was going to happen, and were shocked when it did.
Tones, a brief “genine” analysis of your post
- Wrong
- Wrong
- Wrong
- Wrong
There you go, spin-free analysis.
Hilarious. While Teh Leftist Scribblers were “ignoring” the policy failures, they were busy creating fantasy rorts out of the BER, making up crap about climate change, and fabricating out of whole cloth the “illegal” asylum-seeker non-problem.
Ah yes the asylum seeker non-problem
11,200 people come to Australia every day unremarked. We don’t jail them, abuse them, set them up in tents, make them bring their own water and food or any of the other garbage we inflict on the average of 20 asylum seekers per day who arrive and ask for refugee protection under the law of the land.
@PhilM,
at the top right of this blog, there is a blurb which says, in effect, that the punditocracy shall be examined through a constructive debate grounded in reasons and facts. So, an OP 3 times longer than the letter is what is required here.
I don’t wish upon anyone the tedium of repeatedly doing so but enjoy the effort when it is made. For example, the inimitable MoC showed how the self-referential polemic of Bolt completely debased itself into
hilaritycircularity on one occasion.In this case, I should not be surprised that Bolt has further convinced himself of the veracity of his own opinions by referencing Kenny’s letter/article because it expresses similar feelings. Your opinion, therefore, would be that Bolt’s isn’t based on any fact or reason. Which leaves me with a chain of opinion devoid of fact or reason – hardly the basis for a constructive debate.
“In the same way that surgeons will amputate a gangrenous leg to save a life, we need to amputate the universities to save our culture.”
Tadpole of Tomakin (Reply)
Mon 20 Dec 10 (12:17pm)
Jesus wept.
“Lets ignore the fact for a sec that there is no left wing version of the Australian.”
You could print out transcripts of the ABC if you’re desperate.
“If this blog was a genuine analysis of journalism”
Oh, wow! That’s the funniest thing I’ve read on here ever!
Is Chris Kenny culpable for Cut & Paste?
‘You could print out transcripts of the ABC if you’re desperate.’
Don’t think that’d even vaguely do, they just reprint Coalition media announcements these days.
Yet the shrill whining vomit from the Boltverse™ continues. What they really want is the ABC to NEVER do anything BUT print Coalition press releases.
But you’d still be getting the coalition worldview.
Again: where is the pro-ALP alternative to the current msm?
@Teecha10
“Which leaves me with a chain of opinion devoid of fact or reason “.
Why is the onus on me or us to provide facts or reasons on what is largely a politically partisan venom filled bile piece? Why is the onus not on Chris Kenny to provide a factual account of events, instead of just an opinion piece?
I thought Jeremy’s few comments on it were enough to illustrate that Kenny’s letter was just hypocrisy.
But what the hey, here’ a few more. I’ve got a few minutes before I have to go out.
“Not only were they publicly and privately contending that his continued leadership was assured, but they were predicting he would recover from disastrous polling to win re-election.”
Why wouldn’t they? Was it unreasonable that they consider a first term government has a chance at re-election, considering John Howard had won in 2004 despite being behind in the polls initially? Also considering Centerbet never had Labor as losing & most other polls consistently showed a 2PP outcome neck & neck between Feb & August 2010.
http://au.nielsen.com/news/documents/NielsenPoll2010.pdf
“Yet on this, the biggest political story for 35 years, they collectively failed at their task at least as spectacularly as had the outgoing prime minister.”
They might be based at Canberra, but they are not members of the parliament & are not invited into private party room discussions for note taking. They are also not provided with all phone recordings, emails, texts or faxes. Is Kenny suggesting they lacked clairvoyancy?
“Proclaimed as “exclusive’’, it was a sad indictment of the state of Australian journalism that the US ambassador was describing systemic weaknesses in the Rudd government barely a year after its election and a full year before most journalists perceived any cracks”
Was it a sad indictment that a) news.ltd didnt get the exclusive b) that they dont have access to US ambassadors classified documents, or c) that news.ltd couldnt be trusted with being handed the leaks directly instead of wikileaks?
““And it’s a point The Australian has been making over and over and over again,’’
Did I miss something? Is there a time when the Australian praises Labor for anything?
“Australia’s journalistic cohort is not unusual. In most Western democracies, liberals (or, their preferred moniker, progressives) dominate journalistic ranks”
Opinion.
“The liberal bias is obvious to anyone who has dealt closely with the media or worked among journalists and the predisposition is evident in any sampling of their published or broadcast views.”
Opinion.
“The most relevant Australian survey was conducted in 2004 by RMIT University”
A survey that is 7 years old. A lot has changed since then.
“Four Corners digs inside every Liberal leadership nuance yet has left Rudd and Julia Gillard unexamined.”
Yep, the Liberals are just attacked: “The Authentic Mr Abbott”
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2842861.htm
Yet Labor gets a free ride?
http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/02/People-smugglers-thrive-under-Labor.aspx
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2702210.htm
“Counterpoint, on the backwater of Radio ”
Where is the openly left wing equivalent on the ABC?
“can you find incisive analysis of the economic and productivity reforms required for the nation’s future”
Translation: Can you find conservative business biased perspectives.
Thats just a 3rd of the letter. The rest is the same hypocrisy & blinkered perspectives.
If the ABC isn’t moonbatty enough for you, you could always buy The Age. I’m not sure if it’ll meet your exacting standards of tying every ill of the world back to John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, The Pope or George W., but it does reach some pretty spectacular heights in far-left-leaning whackery.
Get into it.
….ABC not left enough. You guys are a blast!
Upya – yes The Age is bastion of leftism because it prints Paul Sheehan, Chris Berg etc – oh wait!
Tell me is it compuslory to be delusional to be a rabid wing-nut or will a complete disregard for the truth suffice?
Truth is not something Upya is particularly interested in.
It’s not compulsory but it definitely isn’t frowned upon.
Quantize, I reckon it would be rad if just once before we wrap up 2010 that you could contribute a constructed point of view or argument to this site. I’m not looking for anything out-of-this-world, just something that isn’t a brainless insult from the sidelines. It can come from a Left perspective if you want and the topic is your choice. Go for it, man. We’re all willing you to do just one!
The Age has been very anti-Labor of late. I suspect it’s more pro-Greens than anything else.
We are fast running out of options for finding the pro-ALP alternative to the msm.
You’re right, The Age is more Green than ALP.
Just a thought though – could it be that no one seems to be supporting the ALP because the ALP offers very little to support?
What has any Labor government done recently that is worthy of MSM support?
The problem is that Labor doesn’t schmooze the media like the Liberals do. Rudd never did it, and was aloof and perceived by the press gallery as arrogant. Gillard doesn’t need the media to stay as PM, so her schmoozing is directed elsewhere.
The real problem however is that so much of our print media is in the hands of one company, and the ABC, which has been hobbled by funding cuts really only has the capacity to parrot whatever is being put out by the commercial outlets. Given the dominance of News, it shouldn’t surprise that the ABC regularly takes the News ltd line instead of a more objective stance.
You don’t read enough here obviously Upya…and if I thought for one millisecond your mind could possibly be persuaded I’d certainly bother in this thread.
You only demonstrate your ongoing right wing delusion. nothing else.
Oh, I don’t know … maybe getting us through the GFC relatively unscathed?
quantize, you’re probably right in that I don’t read enough here. If you’ve got a comment, any comment, that you’ve made in the last twelve months that is something other than a pointless slur, just let me know when and where and I’ll go and have a read.
You’ll note that the contribution at 25 falls into the pointless slur group. Again.
Zoot, giving out $900 to everyone isn’t really something to dine out on for years afterwards. Give us something from the last 12 months.
This blog is a great demonstration of the left wing groupthink exhibited by Canberra journalists.
You and the journos believe the spin of the ALP, because it represents the case for your ideology.
At least ALP MPs are smart enough to know their spin isn’t reality. They knew Rudd was heading for electoral disaster. They knew he was a control freak who couldn’t be trusted. Yes it was the job of journalists to know this and inform us.
If you want to argue against this logic, I’m still waiting.
Phill Ms attempt to provide facts merely confirmed Kenny’s statements were correct. Or he dismisses them as opinion, when in fact they are also statements which have been left uncontradicted.
Bolt bridgae on holidaze™…plenty of time spare.
Oh Upya, you really are phenomenally lazy…just go read back a few days.
You blab a lot and dont read much obviously.
Tones@28
“You and the journos believe the spin of the ALP, because it represents the case for your ideology.”
The Conservative version: “You and ltd.news believe the spin of the Coalition, because it represents the case for your ideology.”
“If you want to argue against this logic, I’m still waiting.”
There is logic in your rhetoric? Amusing..where?
“Phill Ms attempt to provide facts merely confirmed Kenny’s statements were correct. Or he dismisses them as opinion, when in fact they are also statements which have been left uncontradicted.”
Great rebuttal! Your statement amounts to ; “Your assertions are wrong because…..well..just because…its the vibe.”
So even your own Barry Cassidy admits the story was missed.
Still waiting for an alternative explanation.
Like pink batts program was fine. Until the day it was scrapped.
Climate policy was a vote winner. Until the day it was scrapped.
Rudd was a great leader who’d win the election. Until the day he was scrapped.
ALP was heading in the right direction. Until it lost its way.
So Phill M, I’ll go slowly:
“Not only were they publicly and privately contending that his continued leadership was assured, but they were predicting he would recover from disastrous polling to win re-election.”
You agree this is what happened and attempt to justify it.
But journos got it wrong.
“Yet on this, the biggest political story for 35 years, they collectively failed at their task at least as spectacularly as had the outgoing prime minister.”
You claim that journos had no way of avoiding this failure.
As reported, well informed US embassy staff knew what was going on.
A familiarity with backbenches would have uncovered the ‘vibe’. Unfortunately the lazy journos don’t look beyond the exclusive spins they are fed.
On the US embassy, the issue is not who leaked the cables, but why the embassy was better informed than all journalists.
Some commentators outside Canberra, such as Bolt, wrote about Rudd’s megalomania, growing ridicule by the general public, and distrust by his coleagues.
Most journalists missed the story.
That’s a fact.
So when Rudd was disposed of, it was a shock to most people and journalists.
The sooner they accept responsibility for this failure, the better political journalism will be.
Let’s hope there isn’t a repeat of this soon…
or has anything really changed?
@tones9,
some commentators outside Canberra wrote about Rudd’s shortcomings from day one and eventually some of what they wrote was shown to be true. It’d be a fraction of what they wrote up until the time he was ‘scrapped’ but it’s clearly more than those [of the Canberra press pack] journalists who missed the big one. Who was it that predicted when and how Rudd would go?
It’d be fair to say that those same outsiders almost reflexively opposed Rudd Government policy whatever it might be; for example, Rudd couldn’t take the heat on emissions trading and lost it but followed through with stimulus spending despite it.
Here’s a proposition for you tones9; this is what this is all about: At least one of these outsiders recently got it very wrong on Asylum Seekers. In fact, our man in Hardware made a complete arse of himself by the manner in which he assigned responsibility for the tragedy at Christmas Island to his ideological opponents.
Which, when most other journalists then call you out to explain yourself and admitting that you are wrong isn’t in your DNA, leaves only one way moving forward – attack. So he references an article written for News Ltd by a former Liberal staffer to accuse those of his accusers in the Canberra press pack of getting it wrong on the biggest political story for 35 years because of their political orientation and journalistic malaise.
The biggest political story which, of course, he got right. Well, he gave a detailed character assessment of Rudd, whom he disliked intensely, and some of that was right. He got some of that right. However, Rudd’s character wasn’t the biggest political story of the last 35 years, that was Rudd’s demise in the manner it which it happened.
So, it’s a self-proclaimed victory in an imaginary turf war over legitimacy and authority, typically hollow and bereft of merit. But he’s all class and can have it and, because it’s that time of year, he can have a Merry Christmas, too.
The “scoop” that Chris Mitchell claims about the alleged failures of Kevin Rudd and his Government was a circle of chinese whispers, generated by “protected sources” within the ALP for their own ends, marinated in gullible american embassy cables, and played back and amplified by his own useful fools and tools. This is not journalism.
@teecha
“Who was it that predicted when and how Rudd would go?”
With 1 min research.
Bolt may 31 2010
Guess when Rudd will be dumped. My tip: next month
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/guess_when_rudd_will_be_dumped_my_tip_next_month/
spot on.
most of the 466 commenters agree. where were most of the other journos?
in this posting and many others, he accurately predicts when rudd will be dumped, the reasons – his character flaws, policy failures, distrust by his own party, falling public credibility- and his successor. Thats outstanding and worthy of ‘merit’.
some of it right? please quote what he got wrong.
‘self proclaimed victory’ – no. Bolt just published the article without comment.
Your attempt at misdirection with the boat tragedy is a poor one. It merely highlights that on this issue too, most journos missed the story. They were silent on refugee deaths at sea for 2 years. It’s not great journalism to wait until its headline news, to fake compassion, and then try to divert blame to the navy.
Like Shanahan he was being leaked to. Everyone’s an expert when they have insider information.
@tones9,
a tip can be either information you have received or advice you’re going to give. Either way, it implies some inside knowledge and confessions has commented on that.
Here’s a list of statements from that same article that aren’t right: that Rudd embezzled $38 million dollars, that Rudd ran a disastrous free-insulation scheme, that the super profits tax is an assault on the economy, and that Rudd’s super clinics will be a Whitlam-style waste of money.
These statements are not right because they are statements of opinion, and they demonstrate pretty clearly an intense dislike for Rudd.
Why did he publish this, which is in his opinion an ‘excellent essay’, at all? Read it
and weepand find vindication of much of what he writes. That’s the self-proclaimed victory.The fact remains that the opinions he expressed so readily and vehemently after the tragedy at Christmas Island were widely deplored, and he knew it and very quickly, but not very effectively, attempted to defend himself. For one as notoriously thin-skinned as Bolt, what better way to set the record straight than to allow someone else to highlight his success in the ‘biggest political story in 35 years’.
That’s taking your bat and going home. Hollow and without merit.
tones@31
“So even your own Barry Cassidy admits the story was missed.
Still waiting for an alternative explanation.”
Would you agree that the only way journalists can get this sort of information is through leaks?
“You agree this is what happened and attempt to justify it.
But journos got it wrong.”
When polling goes down for an opposition leader, the speculation immediately sufaces about leadership change, its not rocket science. Yes, the pollies watch the polls. But while its not earth shattering, or un-thinkable for a change in opposition leader to occur, it is unexpected for a change in prime minister to occur due to bad polling. For journalists expecting or suspecting an opposition leader change, they would be probing constantly for that scoop that gives them the lime light. It wouldn’t have been expected or suspected by most journalists that there was a definate change in leadership coming for Rudd & Labor considering what I stated @ 17 & considering we were so close to the election.
“You claim that journos had no way of avoiding this failure.
As reported, well informed US embassy staff knew what was going on.”
Wait a sec. You are trying to conflate opinions of a US Ambassador about “Systemic weaknesses within the Rudd government & awareness that he was going to be replaced?………And that they knew this, but the Australian press didnt? Your drawing a long bow there.
“On the US embassy, the issue is not who leaked the cables, but why the embassy was better informed than all journalists.”
Please provide the reference/url/citation where a US ambassador said they knew Rudd would be replaced.
Out of curiosity. Why do you think newscorp was not given all the leaks that wikileaks received? They are a major news organization after all & have the manpower to go through all the leaks in a timely fashion.
“Some commentators outside Canberra, such as Bolt, wrote about Rudd’s megalomania, growing ridicule by the general public, and distrust by his coleagues.”
This is an epiphany for you? Andrew Bolt is a right wing commentator. Like Piers, like Janet, like Tim Blair. He/they write that sort of stuff nearly every day about anyone progressive. Do you believe this is somehow surprising or out of character for Bolt to make negative comments about Labor or Greens politicians?
Tones@34
““Who was it that predicted when and how Rudd would go?”
With 1 min research.
Bolt may 31 2010″
Psychic predictions website predicted it also:
http://www.advicepsychic.net/psychicpredictions2010.php
WHY DID NOBODY LISTEN!! OH THE HUMANITY, LETS RIOT.
Bolt asks for the sacking or replacement of some Labor politician nearly every day. So he got one right in 10,000. Its a bit like my mates who play the pokies. Phwoooaaaar! I won $300 !!!!!!!!……..yeah, but over the last week you lost $1000. Thats not a win.
“most of the 466 commenters agree”
How can this be??!! I’m truly shocked. People who……read his blog….& agree with his ideology…….somehow agree with his opinions?! I was expecting the opposite…but you nailed it my friend….you NAILED it! 466! This is truly ground breaking.
“They were silent on refugee deaths at sea for 2 years. It’s not great journalism to wait until its headline news, to fake compassion, and then try to divert blame to the navy.”
Reminds me strangely of the Siev X, 353 dead, the cover up, bad investigative journalism & then blame the navy.
So the first argument was that no journalist could be expected to have clairvoyant powers.
Now your argument is Bolt and Shanahan received ALP leaks. Do you have any evidence? Or just more opinion to excuse the inconceivable?
Lets look at the reality of what Shanahan wrote on the day before Rudd was dumped.
“PMs position is secure… The Prime Minister was in exactly the mood some key powerbrokers wanted…the school of thought that it would be suicide to engineer a leadership change has prevailed.
As well, Julia Gillard would not move against the Prime Minister.
Rudd seems safe to lead Labor through to the election…Whatever happens, Rudd has almost certainly survived until the election .”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pms-position-is-secure-partys-is-not/story-e6frg6zo-1225882973699
Shanahan may have been receiving leaks, but they were from the side without the numbers. Its safe to say he was clueless.
I think you are still angry with him for daring to report bad ALP polls.
Teecha,you obviously agree with Bolt’s character analysis of Rudd. Gillard confirmed the policy failures, by admitting the govt had lost its way, had a failed insulation scheme, and scrambling for new policies on climate, asylum seekers and themining tax.
That’s not partisan opinion, its the party leader admitting failures.
Regarding refugees, being “widely deplored” by journalists doesn’t make it wrong. We know which side they barrack for.
Bolt is hardly intimidated by their groupthink. His articles and blog posts were dominated by this topic.
PhillM, I think its obvious no journos received leaks on a challenge. I think they should have been better informed on Rudd’s character flaws.
They also should have been better informed on the level of distrust within his own party. There should have been better analysis of the effect of policy failures with the public. You see, it’s pretty easy to write opinion from spin merchants and repeat
opinion poll results. Anyone can do that. I expect more from political commentators.
Yes the media pack all agreed that Rudd would recover, and that it was too close to an election for a leadership change.
This is called groupthink. When you surround yourself with people who think the same way….it’s called confirmation bias.
No awards for regurgitating the popular and safe meme.
There was plenty of evidence on the real state of Rudd’s leadership, but not in most journos articles.
The US Ambasador was obviously better informed about Rudd’s character flaws, and his fear of a Gillard challenge, as it is what Arbib and others informed them about. So either a Gillard challenge was being talked about in govt in Oct 2009, or Rudd was very paranoid about one, at the height of his public popularity. Either way, the US wasn’t as shocked as the journos when it happened.
And Arbib was more honest with the US than the Australian people.
It’s not surprising for a conservative commentator to be critical of the government. The criticism was deserved, analysis correct, the prediction happened. It is surprising most other journos completely missed all dimensions of it.
It’s not surprising your only evidence is a psychic website claiming wisdom after the event. But I shouldn’t laugh, it’s probably your best source of political analysis.
Calling for a sacking is opinion. Predicting a PMs dumping by their own party is analysis. Excellent analysis.
It shouldn’t be ‘ground breaking’, but unfortunately in this instance it was.
“Calling for a sacking is opinion. Predicting a PMs dumping by their own party is analysis. Excellent analysis.”
No, it isn’t. It’s on a par with Madame Voodoo, the local clairvoyante. They’ve all predicted the fall of PMs before and been wrong. They’re bound to be right eventually.
And there were far more important stories this year than who’s leading the ALP.
You don’t know much about how politics works, do you? Go back to Shanners’ columns in the days and weeks before the Rudd Removal, instead of cherry-picking the one where he was told there was no leadership change. Read Paul Howes’ account of the situation in his book. Read Barry Cassidys’. Read Mumble’s. It was on, it was off. It was on again, then off.
The columns of the opionistas benefiting from the leaks ebbed and flowed with the info they were getting.
Because they weren’t the recipients of internal ALP leaks.
“I think its obvious no journos received leaks on a challenge. I think they should have been better informed on Rudd’s character flaws.”
Translation: You thought all journalists should adopt a more right wing commentary.
The media was saturated with it daily. That still wasnt good enough?
“Bolt is hardly intimidated by their groupthink.”
Interesting that you think Bolt is not part of a group that thinks the same. He is just this independent thinker, that acts in an unbiased way, but just happens to find a lot of things about Labor & Greens he disagrees with?
“The US Ambasador was obviously better informed about Rudd’s character flaws”
Again, you forgot the link. Can you post the URL that shows the US knew Rudd would be replaced?
“Either way, the US wasn’t as shocked as the journos when it happened.”
Please provide evidence.
“The criticism was deserved, analysis correct,”
I’m guessing that anytime Bolt criticizes a Labor or Greens politician, you would think it was deserved & analysis correct. Would I be wrong in that assumption?
“It’s not surprising your only evidence is a psychic website claiming wisdom after the event.”
I must say, thanks at least for taking the time to click on the link I provided. Unfortunately, you couldnt see this on that page regarding Rudd being replaced.
( Prediction made 2nd December 2009)
What exactly are you hoping to achieve from stating that Bolt made a correct prediction for once? Are you wondering why there isnt resounding worship, applause & adulation for his excellence, when others couldnt predict it? You are wondering why Bolts prediction is not talk of the town & admired amongst all journalists?
Wow & you talk about confirmation bias? If someone like Laurie Oaks wrote something like that, people would take notice, because he doesnt saturate the blogosphere, airwaves & papers with calls for Labor or Greens resignations or sackings virtually everyday. Bolt does. So no one takes any notice. Are you hoping that this one prediction somehow vaildates all of his other opinions on various topics?
Why doesnt other right wing journo’s worship him & vaildate your claim like Piers Ackerman, Tim Blair, Janet Albrechtsen? Why didnt they nail the story or predict the same? Are you saying that they are part of the lefty groupthink also?
Jeremy escaped his crib for that dummy spit.
So you think Bolt is a clairvoyant? If so he must be the most successful one ever.
Thank you Jeremy for acknowledging the immense talents of Andrew Bolt.
Perhaps he should claim James Randi’s prize for proving supernatural abilities.
It is the greatest (moral, economic and environmental) achievement of our generation.
Then again, not as important as the biggest issue in your life – gay marriage.
confessions – If i’d cherry picked you could very easily quote contradictory statements – nowhere to be seen.
Shanahan June 16 – “there is no leadership challenge under way, in any form.”
Please show us all those accurate leaks in articles written before the event. If they existed, there would be no revelations in all those wise political history books.
PhillM – Check what I wrote about US intelligence. Arbib comments here
http://www.smh.com.au/national/arbib-revealed-as-secret-us-source-20101208-18prg.html
The shock of the dumping was widely reported, including by commenters on this blog, because most people had no idea Rudd’s leadership was in trouble. That is a journalistic failure for not informing the public.
Your denial of these matters is laughable.
Check the confirmed Rudd character flaws by multiple sources after he was dumped, with what some commentators like Bolt wrote before it.
A very good correlation.
Your serious attempt to legitimise the credibility of a psychic speaks for itself.
As I thought; no idea what you are talking about.
“PhillM – Check what I wrote about US intelligence. Arbib comments here”
Here’s what news.ltd had to say about the innacuracies of that fairfax article:
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/12/18/1225973/039268-101218-wikileaks.pdf
Here’s the raw leaks:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/16/wikileaks-cable-1074/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrikeyDaily+(Crikey+Daily)
Amazing how selective the ltd.news & fairfax were in their reports. No wonder the MSM were not given the leaks directly. How edited & politically filtered they would be.
Where was the following text from that leak?:
“has positioned herself as the heir apparent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as ALP leader ”
This was always known by virtually everyone in the game & in many interviews with Rudd as PM, he was asked if she would make a good PM. He said yes one day. So it wasnt like it was unheard of .
Or this:
“More focused on the next election, party powerbrokers have not had any serious conversations about a Rudd successor, according to Thistlethwaite.”
Or this:
‘Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is “campaigning for the leadership” and at this point is the front-runner to succeed Rudd, conceding that the Right did not yet have an alternative.’
There is plenty of mention throughout the whole leak of various people suggesting a change, but little of Arbib being the architect.
“Check the confirmed Rudd character flaws by multiple sources after he was dumped, with what some commentators like Bolt wrote before it.
A very good correlation.Your serious attempt to legitimise the credibility of a psychic speaks for itself.”
What do you mean “after he was dumped”? There was plenty of talk about it before hand & who the likely successor would be. You had Bolt down as May 31st 2010 as predicting it. But Glen Milne & Nikki Savva were talking about it in March 2010.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-should-beware-the-laurie-driven-by-gillard/story-e6frg6zo-1225840645358
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33294.html
Even Fitzy from Nova predicted it:
http://www.novafm.com.au/video_julia-gillard-gives-fitzy-a-hug-before-becoming-prime-minister_103972
The writing was on the wall, there was talk around the town & an election was to be called no later than September. So Bolt was no magician. Very brave making a prediction 3-4 months out. You didnt answer my last question so I will repeat it.
Why doesnt other right wing journo’s worship him & vaildate your claim like Piers Ackerman, Tim Blair, Janet Albrechtsen? Why didnt they nail the story or predict the same? Are you saying that they are part of the lefty groupthink also?
That was Dennis Shanahan on the day of Rudd Removal, a complete turnaround from his article in the Saturday OO where he and Patricia Karvellas stated Gillard would challenge Rudd.
As I said, he was getting leaked info to fuel his stories about the leadership, hence the on-again, off-again stances, reflecting the factional prevaricating. Either that or Shanahan simply decides each day what he’ll write about, whether true or otherwise, rather than use reasoned and objective thinking.
Kenny argues most journalists missed the story of Gillard replacing Rudd, with most left wingers preferring to argue that Rudd will fight back and win the elction.
Jeremy doesn’t disagree, arguing journos can’t be clairvoyants like Andrew Bolt.
Confessions argues that one journalist, in a supposedly right wing newspaper, was being leaked to about it, and quotes his article which states the exact opposite.
Then there is a link to an article “where he and Patricia Karvellas stated Gillard would challenge Rudd.” It actually says “Key Labor MPs are prepared to move against Kevin Rudd’s leadership”. Prepared to, not ‘would’. It’s typical weasel words, meant to imply a great challenge, but actually not meaning anything.
I too am prepared to do many things if….
All Shanahan’s other reports are of Rudd’s job being safe.
Leakers just tell journalists what they want them to report.
A good journalist writing analysis sorts through the crap.
Evidenced against that link as well, Hartcher was being leaked to by Rudd. You see when your ideological leader tells you something, you just reprint it.
That same link shows the type of reaction to the Shanahan story from other journos. Crikey’s own Bernard Keane called it
“a series of blatant lies. There is no mood for a leadership challenge.”
PhillM argues as if everyone knew Gillard would topple Rudd. Perhaps she would succede him, eventually, but who wrote it would happen before the election? And how many were critical of Rudd’s leadership style and standing within the party.
PhillM links to conservatives Milne and Savva, who get the character analysis and leadership flaws right in March. This proves my point. Where was the progressives analysis? Bolt was even more accurate, in predicting the timing of the overthrow.
If only some lefties could bare to see the “writing on the wall”.
Leave that to a comedian in Fitzy who knows the comedic value of a prime ministerial assasination.
As for Wikileaks, the Fairfax inaccuracies merely reinforce how poor our journalistic standards are. That is the very point of this article.
In terms of the substance of the leaks, your links confirm the info being given to the US Embassy. Arbib confirmed info delivered by Rudd’s brother, regarding leadership fears.
Finally, journos don’t have to validate other’s work.It’s not their role.
I’d say that Ackerman, Blair and Albrechtsen were very critical of Rudd’s leadership, just like the other conservatives you have quoted.
The point is, where was the analysis from the lefties??
Um, no, tones. I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that any old idiot can make “predictions” about the downfall of his enemies. And, occasionally, they’ll be right (more often they’ll be wrong, but their acolytes will ignore those times). But it doesn’t actually make that person psychic, or well-informed. It’s just that if your predictions are within the realm of possibility, eventually some of them will come true.
Here – I predict that Ted Baillieu will lose office within the next ten years. AMAZING.
Not true. He appeared on Lateline with Annabel Crabb arguing that Rudd was pretty safe, and I saw him on Agenda at some point making a similar case. He was all over the shop; one day presumably being told a spill was on, the next being told it wasn’t. All of which was reflected in his commentary on the Labor leadership.
Same with Bolt, who has confirmed he was the recipient of leaked internal polling at that time, and recently that he has had occasion to dine with Mark Arbib. It isn’t hard to join the dots. There was no towering insight or unique analysis, otherwise all his predictions about Peter Costello becoming Liberal leader (remember those?) would’ve been more on the money than they were.