tip off

Hun bases its attack on Gillard on its own lies about “plasma TVs” for refugees

Pure Poison IconDon’t you love it when newspapers repeat their previous bullshit as justification for the next line of bullshit?

Take today’s WE DEMAND ANOTHER ELECTION JUST LIKE WE’VE BEEN DOING SINCE RIGHT AFTER THE LAST ONE ONLY 18 MONTHS AGO WHEN OUR MATES IN THE LIBERAL PARTY LOST editorial in the Herald Sun:


Ms Gillard’s blunders are too numerous to mention here, although that claim might’ve been more credible if the one we’d chosen to run above wasn’t complete rubbish.

The attractive and well-informed readers of Pure Poison of course will be able to see that the Herald Sun is pulling a fast one. As we noted when Gemma Jones’ steaming pile of manipulative garbage first oozed its way onto the less reputable news-stands, the inferences which the Herald Sun editors pretend to believe bear little relation to fact. The $10,000 figure (actually $9850) is the maximum for furnishing homes into which the Department is going to put families of nine people or more – not, as the wording infers, $10,000 per refugee. It’s also not a “home package” as if they get to keep it. The TV is a basic small one, the cheapest you could buy. Nowhere in the material Gemma presented is there any evidence that it’s a “plasma”, and I’ll bet good money it isn’t. It’ll undoubtedly be a “flat-screen”, but only because nobody manufactures tube TVs any more. And this community detention program was actually brought in by the Liberals anyway.

The point is that in order to make its attack on Gillard, the Herald Sun has to rely on misleading half-truths and outright lies.

The question is, what would readers do if they realised? Would they, fooled once, be immediately much more skeptical of any other claims the Herald Sun editors make on subjects on which they’re clearly pushing an outrageously one-sided and shameless agenda? Here’s hoping they’re not the kind of gullible fools who’d cling even more desperately to the rest of the bullshit.

“Policy disaster” indeed.

14
  • 1
    Bloods05
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    {EDIT: Bloods, we don’t publish comments about moderation. The comment you were worried about was published ages ago.}

  • 2
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Last year precisely 4500 refugees arrived to seek asylum, over 7,000 others flew here to do the same thing.

    In the same period over 500,000 others fled their homes to seek protection, 9 million kids died of starvation and preventable diseases, there were wars and convulsions in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and yet we did not get a rise in refugee arrivals.

    And the HUN always forgets that it is a legal right to come here and ask for asylum no matter how many times they spew out their hate.

    Today again Bowen and Clare have a presser claiming we have to revive the dead and buried Malaysia deal – a distraction from the media distraction of non-existent leadership tussles invented by the media.

  • 3
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Ooohhh …. I get it now.

    They’re lying. Now it makes sense.

    I was just perusing media matters, and tell you what … we’ve already got Fox, it’s just not all pulled together into one company yet.

  • 4
    mathewm1
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t say that the Herald Sun lies but this is the same newspaper whose editorial on Friday blamed asylum seekers for both higher interest rates and the current spate of job losses.

  • 5
    Sancho
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Good work Jeremy. Just a niggle: you’re using “infer” when you mean “imply”.

    I infer from this post that The Hun implies each refugee gets $10000 each.

  • 6
    Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    Are you sure you can’t use “infer” in that sentence?

    One of the definitions of “infer” appears to be consistent with “imply”. Also:

    Usage note
    Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
    Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.

  • 7
    SHV
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    Tom Sharpe dealt with that in “Wilt” along the following lines:

    Constable: Are you inferring I’m stupid?

    Wilt: No. I implied it, you inferred it.

  • 8
    Fran Barlow
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    The problem with synonymity between infer and imply tends to be not merely that they both make syntactic sense in the same place but lexical sense as well. Inference antecedes implicatiion, so someone implying something has almost always inferred it first. This temporal nuance tends to get lost in the wash.

    Personally, I strongly prefer preservation of the lexical distinction.

  • 9
    Aliar Jones
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    http://www.smh.com.au/polls/opinion/political-news/labors-leadership-struggle-20120221-1tkal.html#poll

    Ohhhh yeaaaaah life goes on, long after the horse you been beatin’ is gawn!

  • 10
    Holden Back
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Stories Start Here = We Make Shit Up

  • 11
    Sancho
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    That’s an interesting historical note, but I agree with Fran. “Infer” has a useful meaning separate from “imply”, if only because I feel like a Sherlock Holmes fan-ficker if I use “deduce”.

  • 12
    Hegemaniac
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    LMAO, I like it. You’ve answered your own question.

    The question is, what would readers do if they realised? Would they, fooled once, be immediately much more skeptical of any other claims the Herald Sun editors make on subjects on which they’re clearly pushing an outrageously one-sided and shameless agenda? Here’s hoping they’re not the kind of gullible fools who’d cling even more desperately to the rest of the bullshit.

    I’ve decided that it’s not enough to not buy News Ltd papers (I stopped years ago), now I’m coming to the conclusion that anyone who regularly reads this shit and forms opinions is not worthy of engaging me in conversation. Here’s a typical dinner convo from now on:

    Them: I can’t believe how much refugees get when there are more deserving people here already.
    Me: Where did you get that info from?
    Them: The Herald Sun
    Me: (very slowly drink beer then follow this by a look which makes them feel that I think they’ve just shit their pants).
    Me: Hey (different people at this party). How about them swannies this year?

    Good strategy

  • 13
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    The OO are breathlessly report that 1000 refugees have arrived ALREADY THIS YEAR.

    That is 19 people a day.

    Out of 12,400 people who arrive each day.

  • 14
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted February 22, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Hegemaniac @12

    I have recently spent some time discussing things on a blog site frequented by people who clearly get their information from NEWS and talk radio. Things they believe:

    (1) inflation is at enormous levels
    (2) interest rates are incredibly high
    (3) unemployment is skyrocketing
    (4) New taxes on business were introduced by labor and that’s why all our businesses are going bankrupt (also that bankrupcies are at record levels, which isn’t exactly true either)
    (5) There’s apparently some vast new tax on mining (that I haven’t been able to extract any details about, but they just keep saying it anyway).
    (6) The changes to the health insurance rebate will hurt retirees
    (7) The changes to the health insurance rebate will cause premiums to rise
    (8) The changes to the health insurance rebate will cost us money because it’ll cause the public system to be massively more loaded … somehow.
    (9) Businesses are already sacking staff “in preparation for” the carbon tax.

    Every single one of those assertions is trivially wrong, but it would appear that they’re believed by the people who get their news from that side of the fence. And that’s on TOP of the nonsense that’s peddled about the various economic stimulus packages.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...