As if the story of who said what about Tony Abbott’s comments and whereabouts to members of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy wasn’t already a first class clusterf*ck, we’re now treated to up to the minute pieces of speculation from our gallant press corps.
First we hear from Misha Schubert at the Age:
Labor figure Kim Sattler named as go-between in protest
Sources at the Aboriginal tent embassy say the mystery intermediary between Julia Gillard’s office and the protesting mob on Australia Day was Kim Sattler.
Ms Sattler is a well-connected Labor figure, who has worked with UnionsACT.
Followed by the Sun Herald’s Stephanie Peatling tweeting:
Kym Sattler is understood to have denied her involved to a reporter from the Canberra Times. #auspol
The issue is obviously one that has the attention of the Press Gallery, politicians and assorted hangers-on, so everyone’s working overtime to get the complete picture of what happened, but is it too much to ask for the press to ensure that they have a more complete understanding of the facts before rushing to file?
This whole event has quickly defended into farce, and reporting untested assertions does nothing to improve the situation. Yet another example of being first not necessarily being best.
77 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Also the fact that it’s pretty much entirely a beat-up.
Tony Abbott made provocative remarks about a group of people protesting for indigenous rights.
He then attended a public function right near that group of people.
Somebody told the protesters he was nearby at a public function.
They went to protest to him directly.
They banged on windows and called him a “racist” and suggested he should feel “shame”.
Which part of this is a scandal other than
- the AFP massively overreacting; and
- Tony Abbott’s hostility to the aboriginal protesters?
I don’t care who told them he was nearby – they were perfectly entitled to go and let him know what they thought of his remarks on the television.
Ok, everyone, it’s time to come clean.
Did anyone here NOT tip off the protesters to tony’s location? I actually can’t remember any more if I did. I don’t think I was in the vicinity, or possibly even awake, but I might have been responsible. If I was, I’m sure I could have come up with a much more outrageous version of his comments than any of those other amateurs.
I also tripped over the PM. And I stole her shoe.
I repeat – Mr ALP, I hope you’re investigating this thing, because somebody needs to get some facts out there before somebody really DOES blame random people off the street.
Jeremy you capacity for hysterical exaggeration and disingenuous obfuscation continues to grow apace. Some might say ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is taking root.
That Abbott’s original comments were ‘provocative’ is a claim that even some of the ‘embassy’ leaders are equivocating on grounds of misinterpretation. I can think of at least one aboriginal figure who reiterated Abbott’s measured and mild sentiment in recent days. Is he too ‘hostile’, ‘racist’ and ‘provocative’? I look foward to Sen. Milne showing some ‘intellectual honesty’ and suggesting so.
Whilst one is entitled to public protest, one is not entitled to be disruptive of people going about their daily business, least of all cut short an awards ceremony for emergency services personel. Hurt feelings, or taken offence, does not impart the right to form a disruptive mob.
The AFP, like any security detail when faced with an emotionally volatile mob, did the prudent thing and assumed the worst as I’m sure you would too if you were holding the bag when it came to someone’s security.
On the other hand – protest by holding up a sign calling Gillard a nasty word and listen to the cries of outrage……..
Update!
Big Joolz Gillard just had a presser in which she came out with both guns blazing, laying the freshly reacquired slipper into those she ultimately holds responsible for the incident: the baying mob that disrupted an important civil-society event recognising the work of our emergency services personel. Standardless scumbags of the self-righteous bent, to be sure.
She even went out of her way to address the ‘police over-reacation’ claim. To paraphrase: “You weren’t there, the AFP were, they’re responsible and made the call, so you can jam that 20/20-hindsight-from-the-armchair pisswiffle up ya date.”
Well to be expected AB says “Labor must come clean: how did it incite this race riot?”
It’s all obviously a failed attempt to set a trap for Tony.
We demand phone transcripts! and official statements! The commies must come clean!
One comment from AB’s blog for the Blot archives…
“Labor has learned a lot from the infamous totalitarian regimes of the 20th century to the detriment of Australian democracy!”
So have Abbott and Pyne, judging from their comments.
(For some reason I can’t get out of my mind the onomatopoeiac fact that Pyne rhymes with Whine)
Dave “descended into farce”.
Maybe not?
A prediction. I think there’s still time for it.
If or when the speculation over who “tipped off” the protesters finally falls on the shoulders of something not linked to the ALP, or the greens, or the union movement or some other “leftist” icon … you WILL see the NEWS crowd start crying foul about a Labor Witch-hunt.
Let’s see …
And people were perfectly entitled to tell others where Abbott was. Jesus what a load of old cobblers our entirely white media is going on about.
if they want a violent Australia day go and look at The man who Jumped on SBS as they recount Austraila day 2002.
Of course though the MSM have entirely ignored that because none of the true facts of the Bakhtiyari family fit their ugly racist narrative.
Randi Devine speculates on further speculation:
Randi doesn’t speculate on precisely why she believes the PM must ‘explain’ anything of the kind, since after all…
This must be one of Randi’s most half-arsed contributions to a media beat up. I’m tempted to speculate whether she intuitively knows it doesn’t have legs.
Howard, who precisely was disturbed? Get a grip, we do not yet live in facist North Korea.
What a whiney little boy you are.
Wait a minute.
Abbott actually tweeted that he was to appear at the National Emergency Medals Ceremony in Canberra on Australia Day.
WTF?
Someone told someone, who told someone, who called his uncle, who mentioned it in passing to a journalist and their local butcher. Isn’t that like every single day in Canberra politics? We’re supposed to act all surprised that people talk to each other in the small hick town that is Canberra and sometimes the stories get mangled in the retelling? And the correct response is for heads to roll?
HB:
The question was whether the tent embassy was still relevant, or whether it should be moved. At no point did tony say “no, it should not be moved”. Instead, he gave a bunch of reasons why it was no longer important and ended with “I think it probably is time to move on from that”. The transcript is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-27/aboriginal-leaders-reflect-on-tent-embassy-protest/3797966
It was, indeed, a provocative statement. It would have been provocative if one of the oppo’s preferred spokesmen for indigenous australians had said it, it would have been provocative if julia gillard had said it. But the figurehead of the party that has opposed many of the major reforms over the decades does have a certain special place in this regard.
Maybe he was edited to remove the bit where he said “it is not my intention to say it should be moved” or “I’m obviously only talking about the politics, dummy”, but that answer could indeed give somebody the distinct impression that, from the two options being presented, it was the latter he favored.
Like most of the wild swings of opinion this weekend, the one that says he didn’t say anything that could be misinterpreted is probably one of the sillier ones. Unsurprisingly, it was left to the ABC to actually publish the full context of the statement.
Unbelievable. I was fully expecting the PM to unequivocally declare no confidence in a crucial security arm of her government, especially the branch of it with responsibility over her day to day security.
The real issue is, of course, the fact that Abbott’s big, unsupervised gob did its ugly work again. To even canvass the “irrelevance” of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, on Australia Day, close to a gathering of people for whom that institution is a matter of pride and importance, underlines his complete lack of tact and common sense. Stupid sod.
Interestingly Their media did not touch this…
Liberal.org.au publishes calls to violence
———–
Or this…
2GB enters the violent comment sweepstakese
———–
Liberal website runs net nasties
Sydney Morning Herald, 13 October 2011
———–
LNP candidate Paul Freebody sacked over ‘JFK’ email
The Australian, 19 August 2011
————–
Senator’s cake not just a lot of croc
NTNews, 27 July 2011
——————
Temperatures rise at carbon rally
Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July 2011
——————-
Abuse and ovation at carbon tax forum
{Video}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0SU8Frk03E
==============
Jeremy wrote:
The cone of protection installed around Abbott
The right wing media go out of their way to protect him from exposure to difficult questions or issues. The media avoiding putting tricky questions to him, and routinely lob him lazy Dorothy Dixers.
When it does happen that somehow someone/s do confront him with the reality of his position (in this case, the protestors) all hell breaks loose within the media. The shell of protection they’ve erected and maintained around him was pierced (if only momentarily), and they don’t like it.
Just as when Mark Riley asked him to explain his “shit happens” remark. This is the question that triggered Abbott’s infamous 72-second mental meltdown. In the wake of that episode, many of the media commentariat turned on RILEY (who was simply doing the duty of a reporter), calling him to apologise. Blogs/talkback lines were, by appearances, astroturfed by hordes of voices, again intent on shielding Abbott, shifting the blame onto the journo for (my words) piercing the shell of protection that has been placed around Abbott.
On the Riley incident, Abbott’s office had been given more than two hours notice in advance of the nature of the questions he would be getting. So it’s not like he was ambushed or anything of the nature, as many of the media commentators, “astroturfers” whined.
Video of the Abbott meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdPabnXUNA
Here is an example of the sort of soft, pressure-less questioning he gets from the right-wing media. Any friendlier and one could be excused for calling it ‘bromance’.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3202990.htm
Contrast the above with the same journalist’s treatment of a left-wing party leader. Chalk and cheese:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3219517.htm
Mad Ol’ Aunt Marilyn @ 11
That would be the emergency service members and their families trying to enjoy their awards ceremony, Aunt Marilyn. You know, the people who one day may have to risk their life for you after you leave the heater on and fall asleep at the keyboard after another big day hitting the sherry and bombarding the blogosphere with crazy ol’ aunt rants.
Whilst I’m pleased to see you still retain enough of your faculties to realize we are indeed in a country other than North Korea, I’d hope you’d retain enough of your decency to agree that disrupting such an event is indeed scumbag-esque behaviour.
This is interesting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/p0bnl/lies_in_the_australian_media_may_have_caused_or/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Matthew
Matty, the word “provocative” implies the act in question is intended to provoke. That is, there is the intention to stir-up trouble. Abbott was asked a question and gave an answer. Now, the manner in which he answered it is what is important, not the answer itself.
We must be able to answer sticky questions honestly in a sensitive manner, without it being called provocation. Provocation is when one answers honestly or otherwise with the intent to provoke.
Any honest observer would have to say that Abbott was very circumspect in giving a straight answer in this case. He was clearly aware of the potential for upset and his words were clearly not meant to provoke.
When my wife asks ‘does this dress make me look fat?’, and I wanted to be honest and provocative I could say something insensitive and provoke her anger. But being the fabulous catch that I am, I phrase it in a way that spares her feelings and sees her trying on another dress.
Abbott took the latter route in answering the question on Thursday, the problem was the ‘wife’ in this case was tired and emotional and reacted poorly regardless of provocation.
howardb @ 3
“one is not entitled to be disruptive of people going about their daily business”.
Ahhh yes, jolly good show, a fellow is allowed to protest don’t y’know, but only if nobody notices, I mean to say, good lord, steady on chaps, we don’t want to scare the horses. I mean to say, banging on a chaps window? Bit rum, what? Don’t spare the rod I say, these so called protesters need a short sharp shock, national service, that sort of thing. Pip pip, toodaloo.
He didn’t come down in the last shower, so don’t f@ck with Howie, Matty!
Pure. Gold.
The Right and Spin – they go together like bum and toilet paper.
It was meeeeee!
No. Quite frankly, why is it so important to the press anyway? It’s ignoring the bigger picture, ie the comments Abbott said and how and why it incensed the crowd.
JS @24
Yeah, well, wherever he is I think he does indeed need to come back down.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provocative
Give it up.
Wow…look, proof of parallel universes!
“He was clearly aware of the potential for upset and his words were clearly not meant to provoke.”
That’s the problem. I’m not sure that either of those assertions is necessarily true. I think, sometimes, he’s so focused on what he wants his target audience to hear that he forgets that other people are listening.
Nobody ever said it was easy to be a politician. I couldn’t do it, I wouldn’t even want to try.
This is ridiculous.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/i_do_not_believe_gillard_and_did_not_hear_her_say_sorry/
Somebody needs to breath into a paper bag and have a lie-down. I wrote a long response to that, but I’ve shelved it. I think everyone’s pretty much over it.
That post strikes me as a bit … I’ll just say “overwrought”. I write speculative nonsense like that from time to time, but nobody pretends I’m a journalist.
It’s desperate, and full of some extremely ridiculous allegations and suggestions (and some outright claims that are laughable). And I’m not sure I take very seriously any claims about the inner workings of canberra from a guy who apparently doesn’t know what a security clearance is.
And tony abbott’s comments were not innocuous. Not when taken in context. They didn’t justify violence, but they were divisive. Whether they were respectful is a matter of opinion.
Sadly, he could pound the keyboard with his elbows and the droogs would all chant agreement.
I reckon putting out fires, saving people from drowning and other things were more disturbing than a few people protesting.
Howard I reckon you must be about 11.
I think the pedantry shown on some of the right wing blogs in regard to this matter points at Gillard Derangement Syndrome.
Howard should get an agent, some of that stuff wouldn’t sound out of place in the Comedy Festival.
More trouble for News.
Four more jounos and a policeman arrested over claims News paid police for inside information.
The arrests included The Sun’s crime editor Mike Sullivan, its head of news Chris Pharo, and former deputy editor Fergus Shanahan.
Also arrested was the paper’s former managing editor Graham Dudman, now a columnist and media writer.
A Sun reporter, who asked not to be named, said: “Everyone is a bit shocked, there is disbelief really. But there is a big difference between phone hacking and payments to the police.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/28/newscorp-arrests-idUSL5E8CS03Y20120128
So how long were the protesters there? And did Abbott at any time think of going out and calming things down by talking to the leaders?
ABC, Fairfax and even The Australian are now all running the story about the arrest of 4 Sun journos and a cop. Mostly they just carry the Reuters or AP reports.
Isn’t it high time the media gave this affair a …gate moniker?
Lobbygate? Tentgate?
Nah… Suggestions?
“On the other hand – protest by holding up a sign calling Gillard a nasty word and listen to the cries of outrage……..”
Not really. The outrage was over the libs’ decision to be photographed in front of those signs, thereby appearing to endorse them.
Your analogy would work if gillard had run outside and started banging on the windows with the protesters. Or opened the doors and shouted “There he is!”
Oooh, hang on. Does anyone know where the FIRST BLOKE WAS?!?!?! (quick, somebody suggest it to andy, he’ll probably give it a run)
I’m guessing he hasn’t slept much over the last few nights. Gillard’s gotta be a goner this time… er, having survived his bold predictions of ‘out by Sept’, etc.
It must be true. He can taste it.
Is there?
Matty
From a real dictionary, the OED, the definition of ‘provocative’:
That being, what is ‘provocative’ is more defined by the alleged provoker’s intent rather than other people’s reaction. Unless you have a more circumspect manner in which Abbott could have answered that question without resorting to misrepresenting his honest opinion, I’d say he was not deliberately intent on causing anger.
Of course said opinion may upset some, and clearly did, but that does not mean it was provocative.
Crazy Ol’ Aunty Marilyn
Coming live and direct from the attic! Entourage of innumerable stray cats assumed.
That’s the sort of logic that only a long-term exposure to sherry and attic mould can produce, me ol’ aunt. Whilst I’m sure many things our emergency services personel deal with daily are indeed more disturbing than Thursday’s rabble (like say, when the day comes for them to prise your cold dead fingers off the keyboard and remove your stiff sherry-soaked, cat-turd encrusted corpse from the attic), I’d like your to try and look past the default nastiness of the scold you are and come to see that it is no excuse for crashing their award’s ceremony.
This was posted at 5.09am. Hitting the sherry early Aunt Marilyn? Don’t forget to feed the cats.
Howard, you’re making a goose of yourself. The comments provoked, ergo they were provocative. Are you really hoping to unravel the entire weekend by focusing desperately on making one word mean something other than it usually does (primarily by just saying it does over and over), then maybe hoping you can shout “Ah HA! And THAT’S why none of this ever happened!”
I never said tony abbott intending to provoke. I don’t think anyone here believes that. Nobody’s argument rests on that claim. What are you hoping to achieve?
Said, in the middle of an ugly diatribe, without a hint of irony…..
Expletive! This story is so insignificant.
Matty
Steady on, Matty.
The word ‘provocative’ implies intent, as highlighted by the given OED definition. Therefore, unless one is asserting that Abbott was intending to anger, the use of the word in this case appears to be clumsy at the least through to downright deceptive at the most.
Clearly, in relation to this whole tawdry incident, the use of the word ‘provocative’ goes to nothing more than Abbott’s intent. Unless one is willing to say that Abbott was out to cause anger, the use of the word ‘provocative’ appears misplaced.
A truthful answer given with sensitivity and circumspection should not be regarded as provocative.
“Not really. The outrage was over the libs’ decision to be photographed in front of those signs, thereby appearing to endorse them.”
Rubbish. There was plenty of whinging at the fact that the signs were there at all, and therefore what a naughty lot the carbon tax protesters were. The fact that someone happened to get those signs into the same shot as lib speakers was then opportunistically used to beat them up.
“Your analogy would work if gillard had run outside and started banging on the windows with the protesters. Or opened the doors and shouted “There he is!””
Or even if people associated with the PM’s office had set the situation up in the first place.
Oh…………..
Yeah, they cunningly forced Tony Abbott to declare that the Tent Embassy should “move on”. Tony Abbott, ALP operative.
Howard, you’re an idiot. Not to mention desperate. Nobody can say what abbott’s intent was. Nobody tried to. Heck, probably he can’t say for sure what his intent was. It doesn’t matter. His words were provocative. They provoked.
This conversation is over. Get lost.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All