Having lost the battle, but won the benefit of distroying Peter Slipper, the merde-och press online has gone off the subject as if someone had deflated their lead ballon... No, no complaints about the finding of the judge who said the case was politically motivated, using specific release of selected information through the press, especially the merde-och press since it had a lot of "exclusivity" on knowlege... because the case really WAS politically motivated..

So the merde-och media is now trying to find new ways to embarass Julia... and promote Tony who for good reason flew to Pommyland so he could avoid a proper grilling on the affair for which he had "NO specific" knowledge...

"Specific" is a vague term, when used with the other word NO. It does not mean that one has no knowledge of anything, It only means that one has no knowledge of some of the details... "Weasel words" as Julia calls it very simply... Weasel words...

The truth is to be known that in our entire life we have no knowledge of anything that does not have a certain qualification to it... 

May Tony trip over his one too many porkies and stay in the UK forever... 

If ever the case needed to be made for why the Prime Minister is circumventing the mainstream media and reaching out directly to key groups in the community, you only had to look at the reaction to her hosting 20 women to late afternoon drinks at Kirribilli House last Monday.
This was one of just dozens of drinks functions Julia Gillard is hosting this holiday season, but it is the only one to have attracted media attention, and scornful or patronising attention at that.

''PM cosies up to mummy bloggers'', said one headline.
A News Ltd columnist referred to the gathering as ''a coven of female bloggers''.

''Isn't the Prime Minister displaying signs of misogyny … by not inviting men to the blogger drinks?'' a commercial radio host asked one of the women who'd been there.
The guests were indeed all women who produce digital publications but not all of them are bloggers or even mummies. Indeed the media coverage totally underscored the ignorance of so many mainstreamers as to what is actually going on on the internet.
The world of digital publishing is far more diverse and innovative than they seem to realise - and its reach is enormous.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/savvy-gillard-nets-the-influential-20121214-2bfcz.html#ixzz2F6AVdpsX

In Lenore Taylor’s fairly decent report of the story, that coincidentally was published on 14 December, but dated as 15 December (maybe there is something wrong with the SMH server clock, and my server clock?), she does her best to downplay the entire story. Starting with the headline: ‘It may not be Watergate but more explanation is needed’ and including this paragraph:

‘It may not be a conspiracy to rival Watergate, as Labor is alleging. The Coalition may not be ”rolling in filth” as Julia Gillard so colourfully put it. It may not even be a conspiracy that goes beyond those already named in the judgment as alleged co-conspirators. But it does raise some questions. And Brough has not been transparent.’

I wonder if Taylor has ever considered that Watergate may actually not rival Ashbygate? Nixon was, after all, gathering dirt on his rivals who were in opposition, readying himself to have ammunition in an election campaign. He was not conspiring to bring down a government. So which conspiracy is more serious? Only one of these scandals threatened the stability of a nation’s democratically elected government?

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/overlooking-australias-watergate/

-------------------

Not transparent? Brough? More like a dirt-bag in a mining shaft where the canary has dies...

RUPERT MURDOCH’S self-righteous (but very well paid) slaves – like Dennis Shanahan and Paul Kelly – beavering away at the Weekend Australian, really overdid themselves on the weekend.

When Rupert held his editorial conferences, it was always a one man show, slowly turning over the pages of yesterday’s paper until he came to something that annoyed him. He would lower his heavy eyebrows into a frown, slap his desk noisily and bellow:

“What is this bullshit? Who wrote this bullshit?! I’ve told you, begged you, not to print this kind of crap.”

Long pause — the tension in the room electric. Then:

“Why do you do this to me? Why do you write this rubbish?”

Another long pause, as he turned over more pages — then another explosion.

I sat through some of these — but only as a spectator; a guest from another state. None of these men (always men, no women — so Rupert could swear as much as he liked) sitting in front of him knew what he was talking about. He never explained. It was all an exercise in terror. No one even knew what stories he was talking about.

I often saw journalists and sub-editors and chiefs of staff humiliated like this. Some of them I had even served as a copy boy some years before. Some of them were highly regarded and thoroughly experienced in fine journalism, with lifetimes in the profession.

Rupert Murdoch brought a whole new style of newspaper management into the game.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/rupert-murdochs-reign-of-terror/

See toon at top