The Republican strategy in the prosecution of the Whitewater story was to focus not so much on the end game, but to simply and constantly remind the public that the Clintons once associated with shady characters.
Stupidly, Coalition MPs were backgrounding journalists that that was their strategy in the AWU case as well.
At the end of the Whitewater media saturation, the public did not focus so much on shady characters from the past; they were left confused, certainly, but nevertheless satisfied that Clinton's opponents had gone flat out to destroy the president and came up empty.
That's the risk again for the opposition in this strikingly similar case; the breadth and volume of the media coverage - and the intensity and time committed to it by the Coalition - can only be justified if in the minds of the public there was ever a reasonable chance that the Prime Minister did something wrong.
To this point there has been no substantiated allegation of wrongdoing, and while that remains the case, the issue can only go one of two ways from here: either it will have a neutral outcome, or it will backfire on the Opposition.
Barrie Cassidy is presenter of the ABC programs Insiders and Outsiders. View his full profile here.
Our faith in the mainstream media is being sorely tested at the moment — and even more so now press watchdog has condemned one of its own. Peter Wicks reports.
MANY of the readers here would be familiar with the articles printed in the Herald Sun on the 22 May 2012, in response to Craig Thomson’s address to the parliament.
Those who are unaware of what was in the articles will surely remember the front page, pictured below:
I have always held the belief, and widely shared it, that this article is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. This is not the sort of article that belongs on the front of a major newspaper and it is not the sort of opinion that a company like News Ltd, who controls a massive chunk of Australia’s media, should be printing as if it was fact.
This shocking article was a clear example of what a witch hunt looks like and a text-book case of trial by media. Complete with a trial by a readers’ jury, with a “Reader Verdict” of guilty, this was an example of journalism gone off the rails.
When you read things such as:
‘We asked our own jury if they believed Craig Thomson’s claims.’
I fail to see how anybody could see this as anything other than trial by media.
Those in the media world who believe in the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” and “balanced debate” appear to be few and far between.
Interestingly, it was the online independent media that decided it may be an idea to look at the facts, and investigate the claims before jumping to rash conclusions. Among the first of those was The Hoopla with the “A Dingo Took My MP” piece, while other online publications such as Independent Australia delved deeper into the facts surrounding the case, with their ongoing “Jacksonville” series of articles, named after the self-proclaimed “whistleblower” and “Joan Of Arc” type character – that has an apparent ego bigger than Ben Hur – Kathy Jackson.
Murdoch is a twisted mucking duck... Merde-och media, which is the name I use to define his empire is spot on...
Gus Leonisky was aware the Craig Thomson affair was more complex that the media was trying to portray... If Craig Thomson had been part of a secure majority government, never would have the ritewingnuttery and the merde-och media dared to try to lift any speck of dust on Craig Thomson, since Kathy Jackson and her partner seem to be linked with the Liberals (conservatives) up to their eyeballs... I am aware of "conspiracies' to taint members of parliament, but unfortunately I cannot divulge here the matter of the ritualistic rigmarole... In fact, these conspiracies are set up to taint members of the same party as the the operator. they are designed to make people tow the line... I believe Graham Richardson was an expert at this — see the "love boat" affair... On the other side of the fence, Heffernan was the head-mucker for Howard... I've lost track of things these days as I am getting too old...
IN THE political courtroom known as the House of Representatives, the verdict at the end of four days of Julia Gillard's trial is that the Prime Minister is not guilty as charged. She didn't answer a good many of the opposition's questions about her conduct as lawyer to her former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, but she doesn't have to. The onus was on the opposition to make the case against her, a case strong enough that it could support a motion of censure or, more seriously, a motion of no confidence. But it did not. And the opposition knew it. Despite its inflammatory language and the blustery demands that Gillard resign, when it came to the denouement on Thursday, the opposition baulked. The Coalition did not even attempt to move a censure motion against Gillard. Neither did it make a move to bring a motion of no confidence against her. This is an implicit admission of failure. Tony Abbott would have been wasting his time because the jury was unmoved by the case against the Prime Minister.Who is the jury? In all the other Parliaments since the 1940s, there hasn't really been one, just partisans committed to their own side. But because this particular courtroom is constituted around a minority government, there is a jury, and it's the independent MPs who keep Labor in power. To succeed in bringing Gillard down, these are the people who have to be persuaded that there is a serious case against her. Indeed, Rob Oakeshott last week described himself, and fellow independent Tony Windsor, as the ''moral compass'' of the Parliament. How so? They proved to be crucial in removing Peter Slipper as Speaker, and in pressing the government for a royal commission on paedophilia. But as they listened to Tony Abbott's 15-minute case against Gillard yesterday, the ''moral compass'' didn't even twitch. From time to time, Windsor and Oakeshott joked with each other. ''The evidence trail just isn't solid,'' Oakeshott said afterwards. Windsor said that while the opposition might have raised questions in some minds about the character of the Prime Minister, its behaviour also raised questions about the character of Tony Abbott: ''Why is he doing this?'' If the opposition revives this matter in the new year as a major event, this will become the burning question. If Abbott and his deputy, Julie Bishop, persist in the absence of some compelling new material, it will look increasingly like the ''smear'' campaign that Gillard says it is. There is no doubt that Gillard was unprofessional in her conduct as a lawyer, and evasive in her answers as Prime Minister, but the opposition could not support its claim that she is a criminal.
Now I have a small warming here... Should some documents escape from the custody of Slater & Gordon, this firm would go down the gurgler at a rate of knots, losing credibility faster than a fake moon landing... Not that these papers would show anything else than what Julia Gillard, PM, has stated... But these would be still used by a cluster of annoying analysts and a smelly tide of politicians "in dissect mode", to pull the wool over the eyes of a public that has so far been misled by a rapacious nasty media — itself after the carcasse of the PM... (Mind you, the Merde-och press — aka News Limited — today already given up on the affair, now concentrating on self-made "millionaires" and starlets on diets...) It's about time to let go and from now on, the media should come to term that TONY ABBOTT HAS LOST THE WAR, not just a bottle... Sorry a battle... (just thinking about my next instalment of red ned...). Yes Tony Abbott is an idiott... Lawyers and barristers are often called upon to defend the indefensible... that is the way the law operates... but even in this case, Julia Gillard did not do anything wrong. Like all of us, at one time or another in our life, she was taken for a ride...
the brownwater affair...
The Republican strategy in the prosecution of the Whitewater story was to focus not so much on the end game, but to simply and constantly remind the public that the Clintons once associated with shady characters.
Stupidly, Coalition MPs were backgrounding journalists that that was their strategy in the AWU case as well.
At the end of the Whitewater media saturation, the public did not focus so much on shady characters from the past; they were left confused, certainly, but nevertheless satisfied that Clinton's opponents had gone flat out to destroy the president and came up empty.
That's the risk again for the opposition in this strikingly similar case; the breadth and volume of the media coverage - and the intensity and time committed to it by the Coalition - can only be justified if in the minds of the public there was ever a reasonable chance that the Prime Minister did something wrong.
To this point there has been no substantiated allegation of wrongdoing, and while that remains the case, the issue can only go one of two ways from here: either it will have a neutral outcome, or it will backfire on the Opposition.
Barrie Cassidy is presenter of the ABC programs Insiders and Outsiders. View his full profile here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/cassidy-drowning-in-whitewater/4398882
the shocker news media...
Our faith in the mainstream media is being sorely tested at the moment — and even more so now press watchdog has condemned one of its own. Peter Wicks reports.
MANY of the readers here would be familiar with the articles printed in the Herald Sun on the 22 May 2012, in response to Craig Thomson’s address to the parliament.
Those who are unaware of what was in the articles will surely remember the front page, pictured below:
I have always held the belief, and widely shared it, that this article is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. This is not the sort of article that belongs on the front of a major newspaper and it is not the sort of opinion that a company like News Ltd, who controls a massive chunk of Australia’s media, should be printing as if it was fact.
This shocking article was a clear example of what a witch hunt looks like and a text-book case of trial by media. Complete with a trial by a readers’ jury, with a “Reader Verdict” of guilty, this was an example of journalism gone off the rails.
When you read things such as:
‘We asked our own jury if they believed Craig Thomson’s claims.’
I fail to see how anybody could see this as anything other than trial by media.
Those in the media world who believe in the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” and “balanced debate” appear to be few and far between.
Interestingly, it was the online independent media that decided it may be an idea to look at the facts, and investigate the claims before jumping to rash conclusions. Among the first of those was The Hoopla with the “A Dingo Took My MP” piece, while other online publications such as Independent Australia delved deeper into the facts surrounding the case, with their ongoing “Jacksonville” series of articles, named after the self-proclaimed “whistleblower” and “Joan Of Arc” type character – that has an apparent ego bigger than Ben Hur – Kathy Jackson.
read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/on-trial-with-newsltd/
Murdoch is a twisted mucking duck... Merde-och media, which is the name I use to define his empire is spot on...
Gus Leonisky was aware the Craig Thomson affair was more complex that the media was trying to portray... If Craig Thomson had been part of a secure majority government, never would have the ritewingnuttery and the merde-och media dared to try to lift any speck of dust on Craig Thomson, since Kathy Jackson and her partner seem to be linked with the Liberals (conservatives) up to their eyeballs... I am aware of "conspiracies' to taint members of parliament, but unfortunately I cannot divulge here the matter of the ritualistic rigmarole... In fact, these conspiracies are set up to taint members of the same party as the the operator. they are designed to make people tow the line... I believe Graham Richardson was an expert at this — see the "love boat" affair... On the other side of the fence, Heffernan was the head-mucker for Howard... I've lost track of things these days as I am getting too old...
malcolm shows he's an idiot...
not guilty, your independence...
She didn't answer a good many of the opposition's questions about her conduct as lawyer to her former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, but she doesn't have to. The onus was on the opposition to make the case against her, a case strong enough that it could support a motion of censure or, more seriously, a motion of no confidence. But it did not. And the opposition knew it. Despite its inflammatory language and the blustery demands that Gillard resign, when it came to the denouement on Thursday, the opposition baulked.
The Coalition did not even attempt to move a censure motion against Gillard. Neither did it make a move to bring a motion of no confidence against her. This is an implicit admission of failure. Tony Abbott would have been wasting his time because the jury was unmoved by the case against the Prime Minister.Who is the jury? In all the other Parliaments since the 1940s, there hasn't really been one, just partisans committed to their own side. But because this particular courtroom is constituted around a minority government, there is a jury, and it's the independent MPs who keep Labor in power. To succeed in bringing Gillard down, these are the people who have to be persuaded that there is a serious case against her.
Indeed, Rob Oakeshott last week described himself, and fellow independent Tony Windsor, as the ''moral compass'' of the Parliament. How so? They proved to be crucial in removing Peter Slipper as Speaker, and in pressing the government for a royal commission on paedophilia.
But as they listened to Tony Abbott's 15-minute case against Gillard yesterday, the ''moral compass'' didn't even twitch. From time to time, Windsor and Oakeshott joked with each other. ''The evidence trail just isn't solid,'' Oakeshott said afterwards.
Windsor said that while the opposition might have raised questions in some minds about the character of the Prime Minister, its behaviour also raised questions about the character of Tony Abbott: ''Why is he doing this?'' If the opposition revives this matter in the new year as a major event, this will become the burning question.
If Abbott and his deputy, Julie Bishop, persist in the absence of some compelling new material, it will look increasingly like the ''smear'' campaign that Gillard says it is. There is no doubt that Gillard was unprofessional in her conduct as a lawyer, and evasive in her answers as Prime Minister, but the opposition could not support its claim that she is a criminal.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/verdicts-in-and-only-courtroom-that-matters-declares-pm-not-guilty-20121129-2aisi.html#ixzz2Dh7aIwUH
Now I have a small warming here... Should some documents escape from the custody of Slater & Gordon, this firm would go down the gurgler at a rate of knots, losing credibility faster than a fake moon landing... Not that these papers would show anything else than what Julia Gillard, PM, has stated... But these would be still used by a cluster of annoying analysts and a smelly tide of politicians "in dissect mode", to pull the wool over the eyes of a public that has so far been misled by a rapacious nasty media — itself after the carcasse of the PM... (Mind you, the Merde-och press — aka News Limited — today already given up on the affair, now concentrating on self-made "millionaires" and starlets on diets...)
It's about time to let go and from now on, the media should come to term that TONY ABBOTT HAS LOST THE WAR, not just a bottle... Sorry a battle... (just thinking about my next instalment of red ned...). Yes Tony Abbott is an idiott...
Lawyers and barristers are often called upon to defend the indefensible... that is the way the law operates... but even in this case, Julia Gillard did not do anything wrong. Like all of us, at one time or another in our life, she was taken for a ride...