The silence as Tony Abbott stared at Seven News reporter Mark Riley after being questioned on a comment he made in Afghanistan after being briefed on the circumstances surrounding the death in action of an Australian soldier was nothing less than eerie. To me it looked like the Opposition Leader was weighing up using the skills that gained him a university blue for boxing. Certainly there would have been sympathy from me, and I think many others, if he had because the suggestion that Tony Abbott was being disrespectful was nothing short of outrageous. This was malicious journalism of an atrocious kind.
Daily Mail
Elsewhere
Policy
Partners
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media, business, the environment and life.
Copyright © 2012 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey. All Rights Reserved.
Web development by Valegro
Editor: Jason Whittaker
Publisher: Eric Beecher
Political Correspondent: Bernard Keane
Level 6, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000
Ph: 1800 985 502
Fax: (03) 8623 9975
39 Comments
Would you have had those feelings if Tony had gone for the biff but had been thoroughly biffed himself? What you are suggesting is dangerous as it could make a target of all public figures, irrespective of the rights or the wrongs of the situation. Far better is what Abbott did which was to take it on the chin no matter how outrageous the claim. By the way, I can’t stand the man but I think that he did the only thing available to him that would still retain his dignity. If he had gone for the biff then every bogan in Australia would feel justification in their own lousy behaviours. Anyway, what else do you expect of the press in this country, considered and intelligent analysis? You have to be kidding!
Agreed. That strange head wobble is obviously his subconcious way of dealing with the complete rage that was surging through him. I have no respect for the fella but even less respect for that gutter journalism and the spin-off stories that will be perpetuated for the rest of the day…
It think Abbott was silently counting to ten. Good on him for a remarkable feat of self control.
Perhaps “disrespectful” is the wrong term. Why does a politician visit a warzone? Obviously facetime with troops on camera, but also (you would hope) to gain an understanding of what is going on and to, if possible, do somehing to improve the situation by listening to the concerns of the troops and taking some form of action.
Now in this case, an Australian soldier had recently been killed and emails were circulating that this was directly related to the US being unable to provide tactical support to Australian troops at the time. Tony Abbott’s response to this was “shit happens”. Hardly constructive. It might also be worth pointing out that other Australian casualties (namely Signaller Sean McCarthy on July 8 2008) have been through US being unable to deploy assetts as needed to save Australian lives. Is this more shit happening?
Surely Abbott was in a position to, at least, comment constructively on how the process should be improved to ensure that the US delivers on its committments to support its allies. To minimise the risk to Australian sopldiers in the field. “Shit happens” just doesn’t cut it.
So we are now saying that its alright for the alternate PM to punch people in the face when they are asked tricky questions? What a silly thing to say.
I can relate to the head-nodding. Body language wise, its what I do when I am in a ballistic rage, trying not to pull the head off somebody nearby…
“Good on him for a remarkable feat of self control.”
Yes, not assaulting an innocent man. Truly Abbott is a Saint.
@merlot, you’tre overthinking this. If you look at the raw footage of what happened it’s clear that ‘shit happens’ was not exactly a policy statement.
Tony Abbott is many things, many of them which I don’t like, but on this one the journo is 100% in the wrong. There is no way that Tony was ‘trivialising’ the diggers death, or any of the other nonsense things some bored hack has tried to misconstrue out of this.
It speaks to a larger problem with political journalism in this country (and probably others?) that is forever in the pursuit of the golden ‘gaff’ rather than dealing with anything of substance. No wonder politicians are now 99% sales and 1% (if we’re lucky) management.
Pollies can only feel awkward around men who actually risk their lives daily. Pollies are by-and-large pathetic attention-whores with ego problems, whereas soldiers are real people risking their real lives on the basis of real personal priciples. Such commitment is like sunlight next to the pollies’ flickering little candles.
The way I saw it Mr Abbott was trying to suck up and be a bit chummy to the (US) soldier who’d briefed him. He, like most pollies, deserves a grilling, and I reckon politically he’s f*cked.
Skills gained as a university blue ? Name any that gained Commonwealth or Olympic selection post war in boxing. Rowing etc yes but boxing ? Abbott is a political thug and would revel in castigating the PM or any government minister in the position he found himself facing. Bernie Banton came to mind, he has a lot of form for making crude comments that are inappropriate.
Free Country , Abbott went silent because he cannot add up to ten ??? self control ?? he was looking like a mental ward client , nodding, he was on the edge of losing it big time. Come on Ms Bishop , step up for the job before Sloppy Joe does, the writing is on the wall. I will give him till August this year, from rumours around Canberra go. NEXT.
Fighting in the red corner is a pugilist artist with one loss and no wins. Weighing in at 189 pounds from Cannnn-buurr-rraaaaaarr, Ostraya, Toneeeee the maaaaaaad moooooooonk Aaaaaaaaabbaaaaaahhhtt…..
Merlot64:
You missed the point. US army Colonel Jim Creighton had just explained in detail to Abbott what had happened on the ground, including that effective fire support was in fact being brought to bear in that contact.
“Sh*t happens” is a standard expression of the inexpressible in the face of a great loss. But it this case it also implies a perfectly reasonable conclusion that no friendly agency was to blame for the death of Jared MacKinney. Abbott’s comment was perfectly normal. Riley was completely out of line and is lucky to still have his teeth.
yes Bogdanovist spot on. I despise Abbott but this was another sad moment for Australian political journalism which was stretched into two days blather about nothing by the rest of the media including the increasingly shameless ABC
Both Riley and Abbott come out of this looking like total idiots. Riley for thinking any of this matters, and Abbott for being completely unable to think on his feet, and coming off looking like a mental patient.
Put no, instead we should praise Abbott for not bashing a man because he implied something Abbott didn’t like. I guess the bar is set pretty low for Tony if “not bashing a man” is the only positive thing one can say about him.
Abbot went to Afghanistan to try to prove that the troops were not getting enough support, when he was told that was not the case he made the shit happens comment to try to show off his “tough guy” image. The only shit that happens is that he is in public life.
Merlot64, in Australia “shit happens” is frequently a dismissive comment, as in “what can I do about it”? Abbott is at fault for using that inappropriate language that allowed the vile reptile from Channel 7 to make something of it.
Think my comment should have been directed to freecountry.
I don’t believe most people would see Abbott’s words as disrespectful to the lost soldier, and in that respect it is a beat-up. But I think we need to step back a little and look at the broader context in which they were made. Here we have a representative of the Australian Parliament speaking with a senior US commander, in front of cameras. He is not talking to a group of ‘regular’ solders in the mess, over a beer. His language was inappropriate in the circumstances, and reflects poorly on him. Then there was the episode at Parliament House when confronted with the video and somewhat impertinent questions. How should he have dealt with that? Certainly not by presenting a seething image, pre-emptive of a punch on the nose. He should have calmly delivered the context which was his defence for his use of his potty-mouth expression. Or simply dismissed the vulgar accusations and just walked off. None of this shows leadership material. He should know better, but he doesn’t.
While I despise Abbot and everything he stands for, I can’t fault his usage of the phrase in the context it was used. I have little doubt that a goodly portion of Australians would have said the same thing in the same position (including me).
Further, if some even more morally bankrupt “journalist” had later tried to take it out of context to make it look like I was dismissive of Australian casulaties then I, too, would probably have to fight back the urge to clock him one.
Merlot64, in Australia “shit happens” is frequently a dismissive comment, as in “what can I do about it”? Abbott is at fault for using that inappropriate language that allowed the vile reptile from Channel 7 to make something of it.
Exactly! My point is that Tony Abbott was shrugging his shoulders and abdicating any form of responsibility for what happened. He is content to ride on the backs of service men and women for his own political gains, rub shoulders with troops in the field and shoot machine guns, but is incapable of actually doing something meaningful. He was playing at soldiers and got caught.
The fact that he was completely incapable of articulating a response to a question he had known was coming for 2 1/2 hours – after a lengthy FOI request – just shows how shallow and incompetant he really is.
I have been quite critical of the man myself, but this media beat-up diminishes us. If the character assassination of a politician could bring back our lost soldier, it would be a worthwhile trade, but it can’t.
Sorry Richard but you are wrong.
I accept that Abbott would not mean disrespect but it was a remarkably insensitive and crass expression.
If my son’s death as a soldier was described as “shit happens” then I would be hurt beyond belief.. I understand that bad things happen but that is not the way to say it.
He could of said something like ” As tragic as it was the death was it was unavoidable and evrything was done to prevent it” but he didn’t. Yet another gross error of judgement but we are all human.
Then when questioned ( I do agree awith you about first names) when he had time to prepare he didn’t just say “well I’m sorry I should have expressed my self differently. I meant no disrespect and to suggest otherwise is completelly incorrect” but no he doesn’t do this
He goes into a vein poppong silence then reverts to a Palinesque defence under the banner of blaming the “lamestream” media.
The question was valid. He was not ambushed. His offices efforts to block the video shows they new how bad it looked. He had an opportunity to repair the damage & blew it.
Yet again he demonstrates an incapacity to function under pressure.
I will be willing to bet Gillard does not so mishandle the offensive comments about her emotion by Bolt
It seems to me the “shit happens” was referring to the events that caused the soldier’s death, not the death itself.
There is an important distinction between the two.
Suppose instead he had borrowed Ned Kelly’s line, “Such is life.” Would that be flippant?
scottyea and Merlot64 both have very good points.
Tony Abbott was swept up in the “boys toys” part of the day and wanted to be like all the other soldiers, using their language. I accept (as an Army wife myself) that soldiers talk like this. Most of them would have no issue with what Abbott said.
The point is, however, Tony Abbott is NOT a soldier. He is the alternative leader of our country, as such, when he is talking to the Commanding Officer of the forces in Afghanistan, he should be talking like a parliamentarian. Like a leader. He was supposed to be over there seriously looking into the issues of Defence equipment and resources. I think we all know what he meant – he should have said something along the lines of “Look mate, I understand that with all the best planning, training and equipment, in the circumstances of battle, there are some things you can’t control and that is a tragedy”. That’s how a leader speaks.
A leader should also be more than able to deal with ‘impertinent’ questions from a journalist. Particularly when he’s been given a few hours notice, advanced warning of the footage, transcript and questions to be asked. He chose the place and the time for the interview. Surely, a leader (and his extensive media team) had time to plan a response. Even if it was “I will not dignify your question with a response”. As with the email issue last week (and countless more examples) Abbott has a real problem when it comes to explaining himself. When he’s “in the shit” (haha!) he is never able to dig himself out. It’s something his team needs to work with him on.
Also, every journalist in the Gallery would have used that footage. Particularly when put together with Abbott’s response (bizarre viewing! It made the story much bigger than it would have been if he’d given an explanation/ apology)
This typical Canberran scut-journalism will only add to the increasingly high esteem that Abbott is now being regarded by the electorate despite the lamestream media’s best efforts for over a year.
Richard Farmer is to be commended for sticking to his inner gauge of decency before the typically low low level leftist politics of smear evidenced by so many commentators.
Well put drsmithy. It amazes me that people cant distinguish between talking about the soldier and talking about the circumstances, in fact it makes you think that people dont even bother watching the whole video (not just the bit played by 7) but Im sure people wouldnt jump to conclusions without having all the facts. He was saying that sometimes in war no matter the precautions are taken, things happen which are out of everyones hands, how is that insensitive. As for having 2 hours notice did reilly tell his handlers that he was going to accuse him of been disrespectful, did he tell him that he was going to accused him of making light of the soldier death, as if. Any politician would be lost for words to such an accusation and if they did answer it would be something you wouldnt want to here on TV anyway.
Thankyou Drsmithy, I’ve been waiting very patiently for someone to mention that Tony was referring to the events, not the incident, but as sure as shit half the population will assume he was insulting the diggers memory. I’ll bet that dirty journo has had a bigger boost to his ego than he could hope for. It really does give an example of journalists integrity (none) to make such suggestions, yeah he done his job and we’re all talking about it but if the cameras weren’t rolling Riley would probably still be in physical rehab.
Dear drsmithy,
Initially my thoughts were that the story was Abbott’s inability to handle the interview but then I really thought about the sheer crassness of the remark
What you are saying is a person in extremem grief is supposed to be able to make the distinction. Common humanity would require the utterer to exercise discretion.
Dear Jamesk
I can only take your comments seriously if you applied the same test to Bolts comments on Gillard. I suspect that won’t happen.
As to the “left leaning ” media I really think that Packer, Murdoch, Sotokes et al are hardly likely to that way inclined. I would opine that the ALP would love to get the ride that Abbott has got from the media
The only way I can see that phrase as acceptable is bitterly about something over which you have no control. And even in those circumstances Abbott would be demanding the resignation or sacking of any other leader who made a similar comment.
But we’re not supposed to hold him to the same standard he holds others to?
It’s just too easy to see ‘shit happens’ as abrogating responsibility. Whose government took us there? Tony is willing to accept this shit happening as a cost of a war they chose, even in the unlikely event that he is right he has an obligation to be a bit more sensitive about it.
Pav. He wasnt saying it to the person in extreme grief was he (ie family members). He was saying it to the army officers, again a big difference, so are you holding the army people in the video you agreed with abbott to the same standard. Exactly what has bolt said about gillard that is so unfair. You really believe the media favours abbott you need to read and watch a bit more, I suggest you go buy some fairfax papers and try to find some stories favouring abbott or criticising gillard, also go have a look at the ABC. Paul what proof do you have abbott would be asking for a resignation, they would be laugh out of parliament if they asked someone to resign over this, I’ll say it again he was talking about the situation in which the death happen not the actual death itself, how is that insensitive.
Andrew, Abbott believes he should be Prime Minister of Australia. I would hold him to a higher standard than ‘the army people in the video’.
I think the other thing that troubles me is that ‘shit happens’ is a profoundly fatalist mindset. If someone else has ordered you into a high risk situation fair enough – you really have no choice. But when the decision makers express this attitude it’s disturbing. Again I remind you that Tony Abbott wants to be Prime Decision Maker for Australia.
Paul, “fatalistic” depends on the scope of control over events. Did the man die because of a lack of fire support on the day, or because he was a soldier in a combat zone? Abbott went there and asked specific questions to find out, which to my knowledge no other Australian politician did. This act of taking a personal interest in our lost man has led to being crucified by a journalist with smarty questions like this:
What’s the lesson here, that politicians should stay away from tragedies in case a trickster like Riley uses it for a bit of theatrical provocation?
Andrew36,
He was saying it in public on tape to an audience. The probability of it getting “out” would be apparent to the meanest intelligence as is proved by it actually happening.
As to the army people. Abbot said it to them, they couldn’t control what he said. For all we know they may have found his utterance objectionable but were too polite to show it or object. After all imagine the political storm if a US soldier criticised Abbott for anything he said therefore I do not and cannot hold them accountable in the way you suggest.
Next the defence that it was not intended for the family fails on the test that you do/say/act correctly whether you will get caught or not. A crass insensitive comment is the same whether it becomes public or not and speaks to a mind set and behaviour pattern that should not be acceptable.
I do not expect people to be perfect, not even politicians ( I am too aware of my own failings) but I do try to be better. When I am wrong I say sorry & I say sorry a lot.
Bolt cast doubts on Gillards sincerity but doesn’t have the courage to actually say it but hides behind weasel words.He uses the journalistic equivalent of “Cowards Castle”
The Fairfax press is not relevant to where I live and even if I accept your assertion that it is pro Gillard (which is doubtful) it is nothing, repeat nothing compared to the
absolute bias of News Corp. A far larger media group. The last paragraph of my previous post remains valid if poorly spelt
Sometimes it pays to ignore irrationalism …… however……
According to his ‘logic’, the aptly monikered Pav would probably only denounce radical islamists for the Sept 11 atrocities if Benedict were to concede that Urban ll was a naughty boy?
‘This was malicious journalism of an atrocious kind.’
Richard
As a journalist yourself, are you saying that Riley should not have asked the question about the context after Abbott himself claimed that the comment was being taken out of context?
Isn’t that the logical question?
And wasn’t the normally loquacious Abbott caught short in a somewhat surprising manner – surprising even to the interviewer?
Let’s not be cute, Arnold Ziffel. Riley was not looking for information, he was goading Abbott, using very tasteless choice of subject matter to goad someone.
Pav, your missing the point. When taken in context it was not a crass, insensitive comment and many people on your side of politics agree, even Bob Ellis thinks Channel Seven have a lot to answer for and Ive neverr seen him side with the coalition side of politics on anything. He didnt use it when talking about the soldiers death but when talking about the circumstances, you know shit happens, that no matter what precautions you take, that even though you sometimes do everything right things go wrong but its nobodys fault. And seriously you need to get out more if you believe all the papers and media favor abbott.