Here’s Emma Alberici at the ABC doing something similar to what we called for the other day – calling politicians on their dissembling rather than letting it straight through to the keeper:
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: …[Julia Gillard] misled the Parliament yesterday over what she knew and when about the appointment of Bob Carr as foreign minister. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she was saying it was completely untrue that Bob Carr could be the foreign minister and that she had approached him, and yet we know he was approached on Monday night, and now this morning she rolls him out as the Foreign Minister. I mean, the public are not stupid.
EMMA ALBERICI: Hold on a minute, Christopher Pyne. Let’s get the facts straight on who lied about what because Julia Gillard said what was absolutely untrue was an article in The Australian newspaper she was referring to which said she had approached Bob Carr last week. We know now that that wasn’t true. He said he was approached by other members of the party sounding him out. That’s a far cry from being offered the job by the Prime Minister last week, isn’t it?
Here, by contrast, is Andrew Bolt’s take on that interview. It is amusing and revealing to read in the original transcript the parts he chooses to omit for his readers in his heavily-edited version.
23 Comments
That’s the second time (that I’m aware of) that Christopher Pyne has had his knuckles rapped over by one of the ABC female political reporters – I think the other time was Sabra Lane. It’s an encouraging start, but I’d like to see more fact checking by anyone who is interviewing on Our ABC.
Ha! Of course it’s going to read like a biased diatribe if you completely omit the responses of Christopher Pyne. Once again, it was Andrew betting on the fact his readers wouldn’t actually click through to read the transcript.
FYI I just posted that on his blog, but I’ll be surprised if it sees the light of day.
It’s a pity she went so easy on him at the end and just let him speak without challenging his assertions, for example about how they expected to increase the paid parental leave scheme and return to surplus while abolishing both the carbon price AND the mining tax. Not to mention (well, yes to mention) failing to challenge his accusation of class envy.
Word count from that Lateline
interviewdiscussion: Pyne 1,680, Alberici 686.Yet Andy quotes not one word from Pyne in order to portray Alberici as… a “shock jock”?
Yes, he drops the phrase in there tentatively, perhaps knowing his readers will run with it.
And yeah, it was meant to be a ‘Friday forum’ discussion, but no government member fronted. Presumably Andy believes Alberici should have allowed Pyne to bleat endlessly on from the Coalition songbook.
I suppose the scraps that Rupert tosses are enough to ease what little conscious Bolt has.
I skimmed it earlier this morning, but really didn’t have time to read the transcript. What seemed most off about andy’s “fair and balanced” coverage wasn’t the elipses – I pretty much know what THEY mean these days (i.e. they represent anything that undermines his slant, sometimes most of the original material) – but the impression that he had left out anything at all that pyne said. And there weren’t even any of the little tags that say who’s speaking, because that would have made it a wee bit obvious. He’d turned an interview into a monologue, then criticised alberici for being political!
And then somehow it’s the ABC that’s supposed to be biased.
But it is nice to see SOMEBODY start to call the libs (hopefully to be followed by some of our newly-minted public commentators from the mining industry) on some of the nonsense that they truck out.
I particularly liked Andy’s heading calling her ‘young Emma’. The patronizing twat – following her Wiki, she’s at least 41…
I don’t have proof, but I suspect that Andrew is a wanker.
Although false, there may be some truth to the claim …
I have heard, but cannot confirm …
Some might think …
I fear …
Hmm.
Bottom line is just Gillard being shifty and clever with words again. Not lying of course – though she was unwilling to be as forceful in parliament for some strange reason….
Did his pressure yield results in tonight’s interview?
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3446357.htm
Watching tonight’s story on wild rivers, Lateline did not provide an interview with the pro wild rivers side of the story. Lateline seems pretty right wing to me.
I’m not saying Andrew Bolt does this every single day of his life, but you’d have to wonder given the evidence.
Not that evidence or facts are your kind of thing Bob.
Back to your bottle of News Ltd venom.
“Bottom line is just Gillard being shifty and clever with words again. Not lying of course”
Oh, for pete’s sake. What do you want? It was a discussion with a potential replacement in the senate and possible candidate for a ministry. Do you think these things should take place in the Big Brother House or something? What makes everyone think that carr was the only person approached anyway?
Here’s a thought – how about we put ALL private political discussions up on youtube? That’ll make governing really easy, ‘specially next time we’re negotiating a free trade agreement or something.
Get a grip. It was an internal party discussion. The PM has absolutely no obligation to tell anybody outside parliament what’s involved until some sort of decision is made. All gillard had to say was “none of your business”, because at that stage it really was none of anyone’s business. People might be awfully curious, but that’s tough – I, for one, am awfully curious to know just what downer knew about AWB’s trucking fees, but I never will.
It wasn’t gillard being clever with words. But what she really needs to perfect is “talk to the hand” when the press comes calling about party political gossip. Then maybe they’ll take an interest in policy again – you know, the stuff that actually affects people, that they have a right to know about but aren’t hearing about.
If Gillard is shifty with words what would you call bolts omission of them
“at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless”? But given your stupidity brown, I expect that is fine with you because it is sweet if someone on your side is duplicitous as you only demand honesty of others. Honesty is a weakness of the left but not a weakness you suffer from hey brown?
Even if she had already sounded out Carr who gives a shit? Until the appointment is made she doesn’t have to release the details to anyone. She could say she was appointing Batman and it wouldn’t matter. For all the garbage she cops from the media it’s no wonder she didn’t want to say too much.
Now the hacks are just cranky as she out-maneuvered them all making them look like clowns.
Not that evidence or facts are your kind of thing Bob.
Nah, he’s a bit more of a common sense and “everybody knows” kinda guy
Well said Rob.
Brown Bob and Col regularly make fools of themselves here with their lame quest to CATCH OUT THE LEFT on their HYPOCRISY!
A mature intelligent adult who is not blinkered by political dogma understands well that politics is precisely the kind of game where hypocrisy knows no ‘side’.
The fact these two dimwits are so smug about their often phony ‘gotchas’ reveals a level of delusion that is hard to fathom.
i pity anyone with a brain who has to deal with them when they’re away from their keyboards.
I might be wrong but I actually doubt that they are real Aliar. I have see col caught out on this site in a bold lie about climate change and he was not even able to remember what lie he was being called on. Given their style I think the two are one and the same and that they are an astroturfer who has multiple online personalities.
Have you noticed how col pops up on every thread related to climate change? The goose could not even understand variation around a mean at first and now pretends to read scientific literature. Who would ever forget his quip about believing ‘his’ scientists. I wonder if he gets his car repaired by a mechanic or by ‘his’ mechanic, who the rest of us refer to as a florist.
If you consider how much big business and the rich are spending on political lobbyists, advertising, and groups such as the IPA, it would be a mere pittance to pay a few people to post on Crikey to disrupt the proceedings.
I know from when I post that it takes a lot of time to read an article and then to keep up-to-date with all the comments. And writing a meaningful post is also time consuming. The usual suspects are on Crikey for most of the day most days – an incredible commitment.
I have no interest in cricket – so I can’t imagine what might happen for me to get some satisfaction from spending hours each day on a cricket website repeatedly saying that cricket was boring, etc, etc.
Imagine how much more informative and useful the discussions on Crikey would be if readers had the ability to choose not see posts by readers that they wanted to ignore. And image how discussions on topics such as how to best respond to climate change might have gone if Crikey had said that in some discussions climate change denial posts would be deleted (of course there should have been a place for discussing whether or not climate change is true).
I think it is clear that the usual suspects have been very effective in disrupting debate on Crikey. And I’m sure that due to most Crikey comments being filled with the same old back and forth that possibly most Crikey readers have given up even reading comments.
Fortunately Pure Poision seems to be less effected by the usual suspects.
Apparently there were some ‘troubles’ with the ABC Lateline site involving:
1) The Alberici-Pyne segment not being available;
2) Wording of the transcript.
__________________
1) The Alberici-Pyne segment not being available
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Commenter, Bushfire Bill, Poll Bludger
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 1:20 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/03/01/morgan-face-to-face-52-48-to-coalition-2/comment-page-37/#comment-1186159
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Commenter, Bushfire Bill, Poll Bludger
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/03/01/morgan-face-to-face-52-48-to-coalition-2/comment-page-41/#comment-1186332
__________________
2) Wording of the transcript.
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Commenter, gough1, Poll Bludger
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 5:10 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/03/01/morgan-face-to-face-52-48-to-coalition-2/comment-page-41/#comment-1186320
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Commenter, gough1, Poll Bludger
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/03/01/morgan-face-to-face-52-48-to-coalition-2/comment-page-41/#comment-1186330
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Tweet, 03 March 2012
—
Commenter, Von Kirsdarke, Poll Bludger
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/03/01/morgan-face-to-face-52-48-to-coalition-2/comment-page-41/#comment-1186363
—
I want to know why she was even interviewing Chrissy about an ALP job. Any takers.
“One foul swoop” is one of those too common mistakes in spoken, and now written, English.
The original meeting of “fell” in the olde englishe sense, eg Macbeth wailing after “the slaughter of his chicks & their dam”, was “grim” or “deadly”.
Bosworth & Toller:
As opposed to “Fell, fel”, n.: Skin or fur, cognate with Lat. “pellis”, modern Eng. “pelt”.
Turnbull was ‘in a meeting’.