Comments on: George Negus and the ‘boy’ comment

By: Paul Ferraro

Paul Ferraro — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:59:05 +0000

Sorry for no giving a clearer reference, ltep. I was thinking more along the lines of the following (from Crikey 07Nov):

“The Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoon welcomed the election of Barack Obama in the great Tasmanian town of Launceston.

“45 years ago Martin Luther King dreamed of an America where men and women will be judged not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character,” the Prime Minister declared.

“Today what America has done is turn that dream into a reality.”

Ah, true. Fine words.

The transcript issued by the Prime Minister’s Office says “45 years ago.” As do local media reports … now.

Except, there’s something a little odd. Google Rudd’s remarks and you can see that “25″ appears to have originally been used by The Age and The Oz, but click through to the actual stories either 45 is used or the quote is omitted.

Clearly some other people heard “25″. The Poms and AFP, for starters.

Ah well, perhaps the Prime Minister misspoke, and that’s no sin. A bit naughty to change the transcript, however. But given Barack Obama wouldn’t have been overly impressed by an Australian Prime Minister who appeared not to know the basics about the man who was, until Wednesday, the most important African-American political figure in US history, a little hasty editing probably spared some blushes.”

Except … a Crikey reader who saw the initial reports immediately after the press conference was sure Rudd said “25 years ago.” Which would put King’s famous speech in 1983, round about the time when Ronald Reagan was agreeing that the late Dr King should be honoured with a national public holiday. Rumours that Reagan thought it was to celebrate the day Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the Lincoln Memorial are wholly untrue.

By: ltep

ltep — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:22:53 +0000

The spoken word is always revised in Hansard. If you listen to the chamber and then read Hansard there is usually a little difference. Members/senators/others can submit ‘revisions’ to Hansard for them to fix and there are conventions as to how much can be ‘fixed’. There’s been a little controversy recently when Julie Bishop sought to get the Hansard to correct something she’d said to ‘put it in the right light’.

By: Paul Ferraro

Paul Ferraro — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:02:23 +0000

While finnicky, it seems a little odd that there is a discrepancy between the audio and the transcript (audio along the lines of “I think the boys gonna be busy” or alternatively “I think the boys are gonna be busy”).

No conspiracy there I’m sure, but why the necessity to deviate from what was actually said? George was speaking casually (As is his wont), so why not have the transcript reflect that?

And isn’t this the same issue raised recently by Bernard Keane regarding a speech by our Prime Minister? Is it really necessary to review and revise spoken material purely for posterity’s sake? We’re all bloody human!

By: ltep

ltep — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:59:03 +0000

Arggh that horrible apostrophe bothers me.

By: mxadness

mxadness — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:52:36 +0000

Load of crap. Even if he did mean ‘boy’ he meant it in the Australian sense. So the only thing you could really take offense of here is that George called him ‘young’.

Which given his old age of 47, I’m sure you’ll agree, is absolutely outrageous.

By: Des Walsh

Des Walsh — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:42:58 +0000

Anyone who knows George and/or, as you say knows his record, would also know instantly that it is ridiculous to even suggest that he might have been being racist. The transcript, with its weirdly placed apostrophe, indicates that he said “boys” and probably, given the lover of the vernacular he is, in the sense you proffer. I’d say “what is this country coming to?” except it would make me sound like a grump .