Both big parties are spectacular hypocrites, and this is illustrated again this week with the proposing of another debate (despite earlier refusal) by Labor, and the refusal of same (despite earlier pleas) by the Liberals.

When Labor was in front, it felt another debate could only help Tony Abbott, so it gutlessly refused to hold one. When the Liberals were behind, Tony Abbott angrily declared that democracy required it and only a gutless wonder would refuse to debate him.

Now the tables have turned, Labor is offering another debate, Tony thinks he can be our next Prime Minister without it, and is refusing to attend on the farcical grounds that he’s got some great campaign location he needs to attend and he just can’t find the time to do both. (Very Prime Ministerial.)

Both sides are clearly hypocritical douchebags, both have demonstrated that they’re partisan cowards uninterested in debating unless they’re behind – but guess which way it’s reported by the ABC? That’s right – it’s the Libs’ side that gets the headline quote:

Gillard’s challenge ‘a sign of desperation’

They could just as easily have put it as Abbott ‘scared to debate economy’ as the partisan opposite, but I suppose that would’ve got the red phone ringing from Liberal HQ with angry threats. (Although it would’ve suited the media’s interests better – shouldn’t they always be on the pro-debate side?)

But couldn’t the ABC have run it neutrally? ‘ALP, Libs sledge each other over debate hypocrisy’ would’ve summed up the position more fairly- and, importantly, more accurately.

In what way is the ABC a leftist organ, when it is regularly pushing the right-wing talking points in this campaign?

ELSEWHERE: completely ignores the issue (did you know that Tony Abbott likes Australian Idol? That’s much more important!) and so does The Age.

PS: Bob Brown remains consistently enthusiastic about debating both big parties, but sadly they realise that it’s much easier to sledge the Greens when they’re off camera and can’t defend themselves, so the answer continues to be, “no”.

(Visited 351 times, 1 visits today)