Professor Bunyip nails Philip Adams for what appears to be a particularly blatant combination of plagiarism and outright fraudulent journalism in his latest Weekend Oz column. Some of Stanley's previous exposes of "Phatty's" misdeeds have been a tad thin IMO, but this one looks (at least on first examination) to be much more damning. Is anyone going to bother reporting it to ABC Media Watch or the Australian's editor Chris Mitchell? The first of those choices is almost certainly a complete waste of time, but ignoring such an apparently clearcut and serious case of journalistic impropriety should provide conclusive proof for even the most credulously charitable that the program under David Marr's tutelage has become a worthless exercise in personal prejudice, bias and petulant bile.
-
About
Economic, legal, political and social commentary.
-
Categories
- Economics and public policy (1866)
- Uncategorized (1445)
- Uncategorised (1118)
- Politics - national (1000)
- Politics - international (624)
- History (397)
- Law (383)
- Life (383)
- Philosophy (383)
- Political theory (375)
- Society (300)
- Missing Link (269)
- Cultural Critique (262)
- IT and Internet (258)
- Media (232)
- Education (219)
- Humour (206)
- Films and TV (193)
-
Archives by Year
-
Posts by Author
- Nicholas Gruen (3063)
- Ken Parish (1440)
- Don Arthur (505)
- Paul Frijters (347)
- Mark Bahnisch (272)
- James Farrell (159)
- Tony Harris (152)
- Geoff Honnor (136)
- David Walker (124)
- Richard Tsukamasa Green (121)
- Fred Argy (113)
- Wicking (110)
- Wayne Wood (105)
- Rex Ringschott (95)
- Sophie Masson (67)
- Cam (63)
- Ingolf Eide (52)
- Scott Wickstein (43)
- Unknown (34)
- Chris Lloyd (33)
- Paul Bamford (aka Gummo T) (33)
- Stephen Hill (24)
- john r walker (20)
- Patrick (20)
- Rafe Champion (18)
- Saul Eslake (16)
- Shaun Cronin (16)
- Roop Sandhu (13)
- Dr Troppo (12)
- Peter Whiteford (12)
- Antonios Sarhanis (10)
- Bruce Bradbury (10)
- Backroom Girl (7)
- john Walker (7)
- Danielle McCredden (6)
- B Model Baby (5)
- Damian Jeffree (5)
- Gaby (5)
- Julia (5)
- Seamus C (5)
- JC (4)
- Luke Slawomirski (4)
- Paul Watson (4)
- James Wheeldon (3)
- Jen (3)
- Paul Martin (3)
- Darlene (2)
- davidsligar (2)
- ellenbroad (2)
- Mike Waller (2)
- David Coles (1)
- Joshua Gans (1)
- meika loofs samorzewski (1)
- Sam Roggeveen (1)
Well, it's certainly a misquote, but fraud? How do you know it wasn't just a mistake? And a plagiarism charge makes no logical sense. He's not trying to claim that he wrote those words, he's attributing them to Bush.
Why should Marr spend valuable MW time on Adams, assuming of course that Bunyipzinsky hasn't beaten the whole thing up to get to his preferred editorial position for the Australian, which is no opinion from the left whatsoever on its editorial pages?
For some reason Philip Adams assumes far greater importance than he actually has, in the minds of people like Bunyipzinsky, and you too, Ken, when the reptilian part of our brain takes over the rest of it. Obviously he has a talent for getting under the skin of certain kinds of people.
What he doesn't have - at least not with the way politics is configured right now in Oz - is influence with the people that run the country. Media Watch can't possibly deal with everything that is written or said in the media. It is entirely correct for David Marr to concentrate on those whose errors are important. When Philip Adams becomes as influential as commentators like the Parrot, then he will merit equal treatment on Media Watch.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the frenzied reaction of rightwingers as they realize that after 8 years of Howard, they still have made not reshaped the ABC's culture in their preferred image, not even a little bit. Not just that, the opportunity is lost. Howardism is sinking fast; the current minister, Darryl Williams, isn't the type to pick fights with anybody and the Labor party might be back in the saddle before the year is over. It'll be years and years and years before they get another crack at the ABC. Which, really, is just tough shit.
That should be, of course, the reptilian part of your brain.
Is anyone going to bother reporting it to ABC Media Watch or the Australian's editor Chris Mitchell?
You could try doing it yourself, Ken, since it bothers you that much.
I must say it's not really worth reporting. I actually agree with Dave Ricardo here. Adam's position on the "Australian" is mere tokenism. He's Rupert's pet leftie.
It looks to me Ken like you've taken Bunyip's unhealthy obsession with Adams, and you've parlayed it into an unconnected and unsubsantiated attack on Media Watch and David Marr.
You may not like David Marr but plenty of people do. If you've got a legitimate argument against Media Watch that is your own (I mean not co-opted from Bolt, Blair or Bunyip) the let's hear it.
Don't hold your breath, Rex. Ken has certain qualities, but originality isn't one of them.
I'll give Ken the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect most of Marr's critics don't like him because he's both left and gay. They might be able to handle one or the other, but having the two combined in one ABC presenter just sets them off.
"It is entirely correct for David Marr to concentrate on those whose errors are important.... influential "
What convenient criteria! Their application to Dave's satisfaction presumably means it's perfectly OK for Marr to ignore the sins of left-leaning journalists and pundits and concentrate solely on the RWDBs, because they're the only ones who are "important" or "influential". The frightening thing is that Dave appears to be advancing this proposition seriously.
As for the proposition that Adams' article can't be plagiarism, remember that plagiarism includes paraphrasing someone else's work as well as stealing it word for word. Read Thomas Powers' article and compare it with the content and sequencing of Adams' opinion piece. It isn't enough to mention Powers in passing (as Adams does) without making it clear that essentially the whole of the column until that point is a paraphrase of his work. Perhaps the mention of Powers means Adams, in this respect anyway, might charitably be regarded as guilty of extraordinarily misleading sloppiness rather than outright plagiarism, but it still merits criticism.
As for "fraud", including words in quotation marks and claiming them to be a direct quote from Bush's speech, when that is plainly untrue, seems to me to justify that label. It's much more than a mere "misquote".
"The frightening thing is that Dave appears to be advancing this proposition seriously."
Damn right I do. By what criteria would you have Marr sort out what to include and what to leave out?
In case you hadn't noticed, Ken, this country is run by the politicians on the Right. They take their cue from commentators on the Right. What they say the government should do, the government often does. What Philip Adams says the government should do, the government never does. Of course the RWDBs have to be watched more closely.
What Adams has done is to reproduce quotations which have had crucial elements deleted in a way that makes the quotes look worse than they actually are. This isn't the first time this has happened, and in the past you've taken a much more relaxed view of this practice.
In this particular case, it seems to me that the primary fault is with Powers, who appears to be the originator of the doctored version of the quote. I don't think it's outrageous for Adams to reproduce what are presented in the NY Review of Books as direct quotes (with a brief citation of Powers for collecting the evidence), though prudence would have dictated a look at the original source and correct practice would require an acknowledgement of the misquotation when it is brought to his attention.
On the other hand, by the time you take out the second-hand quotes, the article doesn't have much to say that hasn't been said many times before.
Ken, I examined both the Adams and Powers pieces. The text that is the same is just the quotations. Adams' text linking the quotations is not a paraphrase of Powers at all. It is much shorter and quite different. The correct term to describe he relationship between Adams work and Powers is "summary". And Adams acknowledges Powers in his article. As for the the fraud charge, you need to provide some evidence that the misquote was intentional. It certainly does not look that way. Those were not Bush's exact words, but that was his meaning, so it seems an understandable error.
Perhaps, Dave, we need two separate programs. One to critique and expose the opinions of those sections of the media who are seen as being overtly sympathetic towards, and having influence over the government of the day; and another program, whose raison detre would be to critique the media in general, without fear or favour - a sort of 'media watch'.
"It'll be years and years and years before they get another crack at the ABC. Which, really, is just tough shit."
Likewise Dave, if someone was to come to your house, steal 40% of your money at the point of a gun, and spend it on right-wing propaganda, then that would just be tough shit. Couldn't happen to a nicer dickhead.
Unfortunately Dave, the right wing agenda does not have to be satisfied by turning the ABC into a megaphone for itself. By the same criteria you use for the irrelevance of Adams, they have already owned the media with the mass audience. Go shockjock..
All they have really wanted to do is smash the ABC up. So they gave it Jonathan Shier. And anyone who wants a program budget now has to deal with the results of that, and with the management mess he left. Can a Latham government fix that? Good luck...
Admit it, Yobs, what really shits you is that you know I'm right.
Eight years of Howard and still - still! - your taxes are paying for the ABC lefties. Face facts, boy, you're never going to get what you want.
However, if it's any consolation, I feel your pain. (Snigger, snigger)
Tim (Lambert),
I agree Adams' piece is better described as a "summary" of Powers' article than a "paraphrase". However, acknowledging Powers only at the end of the summary and without making it clear that that's what Adams' article was (a summary of Powers) is sloppy at the very least.
"As for the the fraud charge, you need to provide some evidence that the misquote was intentional. It certainly does not look that way. Those were not Bush's exact words, but that was his meaning, so it seems an understandable error."
Adams' article does NOT convey the meaning of Bush's State of the Union address. Read the extract on Prof Bunyip's site. In each instance Bush stated that Saddam had PREVIOUSLY possessed various WMD capabilities, and had not produced any evidence that he had destroyed those capabilities. That is, the speech was appropriately qualified/conditional, given the inevitable imprecision of intelligence information. Powers at least arguably preserved the qualified, conditional sense of Bush's address by using the words "might have" in relation to each WMD allegation. Moreover, Powers did not present his characterisation of Bush's State of the Union address in quotation marks. Adams, on the other hand, substituted "has" for Powers' "might have", encased the whole passage in quotation marks, and baldly (and falsely) stated that it was "an extract from Bush's State of the Union message, January 2003". It's not a "misquote", it's a manufactured quote, and a false and misleading one that conveys a meaning entirely different from what Bush actually said.
I should add the caveat that there were other speeches where other members of the Administration made much more positive, unequivocal claims about Saddam's possession of WMD. But that in no sense justifies Adams manufacturing a spurious quote to bloster his argument.
Dave (Ricardo): I disagree with your analysis on two grounds. First, it's just crap to suggest that the Australian media, taken as a whole (and even excluding the ABC) is right-wing. I think you are confusing "right-wing" with "populist". There is clearly a strong streak of the latter in Australian commentary that I would agree is disproportionately influential ... but there are many "left-wing" issues that lend themselves just as effectively to a populist approach, and which do get promoted through the outlets I imagine you're talking about: principally talk-back radio.
The real ideological right-wingers in the Australian media - folks like perennial Mediawatch targets like Ackerman, Bolt and Albrechtson, have minimal influence on public opinion or government policy.
Secondly, even if Marr's goal were to cut the right-wingers down to size, he squanders his credibility by his transperent one-sidedness and unfairness to such an extent that he's left preaching to the choir - no-one else can trust anything he has to say. In fact, his very employment, given his record, is a powerful argument that the right wing voices are necessary to counterbalance an ideologically driven public broadcaster.
Tim L - with the greatest respect (and I mean that, you rock!), I think you understate the seriousness of Adams' offence. Direct quotation is the hard currency of public debate, and only the actual words used, presented in a way that conveys their meaning as uttered, should ever be presented as such.
Moreover, I don't agree that Adams reported "the meaning" of Bush's speech. Absolutely, Bush meant to leave the impression that Adams reports, but that is not the same thing as actually saying it. In fact, the real story lies in the reasons why Bush was using weasel words and implication by association to lead people to believe a set of assertions that he wasn't prepared to take responsibility for.
Dave is makes a good point about the failure of Howard's government to beat the ABC into some sort of useful public good. It has failed and failed miserably. Less whining, more fund slashing and Board sacking is required. And while we RWDBs are stealing Latham's ideas, some nice flogging off of expensive and useless real estate opportunities exist here too.
Ditto Mork,
And now that David Marr seems to think that MediaWatch's remit also covers watching foreign media, the 'we don't have time' argument regarding the sins of Adams et al is wearing pretty thin.
Plus I'd like to add that resorting to accusing Marr's detractors of homphobia is a cheap tactic. And a silly one too considering the regular commentators at this site...
This bullshit about culture wars at the ABC or poof bashing is a red herring. Marr, like all good politial animals, is protecting his mates.
I find it stretching a long bow to claim that a wordsmith of Adam's experience would confuse (let alone switch) "might have" with "has" all
because of a simple misunderstanding. It's a switch that directly changes the meaning of the "quote" entirely. Not that he'll ever have to explain it to us because odds are that the silence from MW on his account will continue.
Where's a Schneider quote policeman when you need one?
Bargarz, you should read the comments thread more carefully. I've already pointed out the parallel between this episode and the treatment of the Schneider quote. I don't regard Powers' doctoring of Bush's quote as acceptable, and I think Adams should have checked the original before reproducing quotes from hostile sources. Having failed to do so, he should now apologise and give the correct quote.
Perhaps you (and Ken) would like to explain why you seem to regard these as totally different cases.
The worst example of Media Watch behaviour is one that doesn't cut left/right at all. It was Marr's complete misrepresentation of the judgment in the Carleton v. Media Watch defamation case.
You can read Marr's version here:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s852834.htm
And what I wrote to ABC Watch, after reading the transcript of the judge's determination, here:
http://www.abcwatch.blogspot.com/2003_05_11_abcwatch_archive.html
(My comments are about half way down).
In essence, the judge found that MW's treatment of Carleton was both false and defamatory. He also found that MW's conclusions "were illogical, unfair and unreasonable".
All this was depicted by Marr as a great victory! I'm no great fan of Carleton, but MW's "reporting" of the outcome of the case was every bit as bad as that of others in the media that they routinely take to task. And to make matters worse, they took the opportunity to sneer at Carleton all over again.
It wouldn't matter who ran & fronted Media Watch. As long as it appears on the ABC, it's a damned program. Now, were it to be screened on Channel Nine, I'll bet you'd think it was a real hoot.
Niall: If it ran on channel 9, it wouldn't concern us so much as we wouldn't be funding it. "A Current Affair" is even worse than Media Watch, but at least it isn't taxpayer funded. We've been over this many, many times.
John,
Humble apologies - I did miss your comment during my skim. No excuses really. Sorry.
The cases are manifestly different in magnitude (and likely motive as well). As Bunyip already noted, "It's not a "misquote", it's a manufactured quote, and a false and misleading one that conveys a meaning entirely different from what Bush actually said."
I've already covered your Schneider post in greater detail here. While on the topic of him, it's worth pointing out another quote - this one from global warming guru James Hansen in Natural Science last September
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
He wrote the article himself so I doubt he misquoted himself. While Hansen obvously supports environmental causes, even he can admit in passing that the zealots did run away with their mouths and that the returns no longer reward such behavior. Let's hope Schneider got the memo.
As to MW, it's problems are not - as Niall proclaims - because it comes from any poison tree. I don't care that Marr goes after the RW journos or commentators with such glee. I do care that similar treatment of his political "allies" is conspicuous by its absence.
MW's sins are ones of omission not commission. Remember the silence surrounding the ABC's bungled coverage of the PM's trip to Indonesia and the lame excuses that followed?
Although maybe Yobbo has a points, we can choose not to subsidise the excreble A Current Affair by simply not watching. We have no such luxury concerning Marr's little empire.
Bargarz, the differences are entirely in the eye of the beholder. In both cases, people who are hostile to the person being quoted see the omitted sentences as mere weasel words, while those being quoted (and their supporters) see them as crucial. The same is true of fabricated additions such as those used by Julian Simon in quoting Schneider (one of many examples from both sides) - for the critics, it's only a matter of inserting a sentence to show what the speaker "really meant".
So we have a choice. Either we can make up whatever quotes we like and put them in the mouths of our opponents, provided we judge that the manufactured quote is an accurate reflection of the speaker's real meaning, or we can stick to the rules of exact quotation. Which is it to be?
Ken, any thoughts on this?
Let's not forget that Adams in this case not only quoted poorly from what was in itself an incorrect quote. He compounded that error by switching words within that error ridden quote so as to shift the intent of the quote entirely.
Whether you see it as mendacity or just sloppiness, that level puts him in the same infamous league as Maureen Dowd.
John,
I responded somewhat flippantly to your chiding over the Schneider quote when I used the shortened/doctored quote inadvertently. It doesn't mean I don't take the issue seriously. Although I really don't think the full quote is much less "incriminating" of Schneider, nevertheless quoting anyone inaccurately should always be avoided and criticised by others where identified.
Adams' Bush "quote" is far more serious than use of the edited/incomplete Schneider quote IMO, because (a) it isn't actually a quote at all, even a shortened one; and (b) it conveys a radically different meaning from what Bush actually said.
I am aware that you would argue that the material omitted from the Schneider quote also drastically alters its meaning, in that the context of his remarks was a discussion of the difficulties of conveying complex scientific concepts in a short time-frame in mainstream media. That point has some force. Nevertheless, the material remaining DOES convey the sense of what Schneider said (albeit stripped of context), whereas the Bush "quote" conveys an utterly different meaning from what was actually said.
Ken, you originally accused Adams of plagiarism and fraud. These are serious charges and you have failed to support them. Certainly he misquoted, but that is likely due to sloppiness rather than intentional. After all, it's not as if there weren't clear claims of WMDs made by Bush's people that he could have used. It is not true that Adam's misquote conveys an "utterly different" meaning from what Bush was saying. Elsewhere in the speech Bush says "Iraq is not disarming" and talks of Iraq's "attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors". Nowhere does he say anything like "we don't know if they have anything, but we need to attack just in case". There was a clear implication that Iraq still had the weapons that he mentioned. The quote was wrong and should be corrected, but your charges of plagiarism and fraud are entirely out of order and should be retracted.
Tim,
I revised the blunt plagiarism label in an earlier comment to this post, conceding that it couldn't be sustained in that Adams cited Powers, albeit inadequately. I certainly don't resile from my assessment that Adams' use of a manufactured quote from Bush's State of the Union address is fraudulent, not just an inadvertent "misquote".
Note that I'm also not denying that the entire way in which the Bush administration portrayed the evidence of WMD etc leading up to the invasion of Iraq was itself extremely misleading and deceptive. You're quite right to point to other passages in Bush's speech which tend to blur the carefully qualified message in the passages quoted by Professor Bunyip. Fairly clearly overall, especially when you take into account statements by other members of the Administration, a concerted effort was made to give the impression that there was a rather higher degree of certainty/proof about Saddam's possession of WMD than was truly the case. I don't accept the current standard RWDB fallback position that Bush et al told the unvarnished truth as they knew it at the time, but were let down by faulty intelligence (e.g. see Gerard Henderson's article in this morning's SMH). But that in no sense justifies Adams in manufacturing a false quote.
Forgive me Ken, but you still haven't provided any evidence that the misquote was deliberate. If you are not careful, it is very easy to get quotes wrong. In this case, the misquote expressed what Bush and Co were generally saying about WMDs, so it seems perfectly explicable as an error.
In my view, sloppiness is the most plausible explanation. But if this is correct, Adams should publish a correction with his next column. Otherwise, I think it's reasonable for his critics to take a less charitable view.
Ken, I've posted on the Schneider quote and I accept that you don't condone quote-doctoring (though I must say I was pretty browned-off with your response at the time). But dozens of junk science sites have propagated the quote in full knowledge of its dishonesty. Applying the same standards to you as I apply to Adams, I think a post acknowledging the doctoring of this quote would be in order.
Ken,
As Tim L states, "...[Y]ou [can't provide] any evidence...[Y]ou...get quotes wrong. [Adam's] misquote expressed...an error."
See, all perfectly understandable in context.
Al
Yobbo's says that "If [Media Watch] ran on channel 9, it wouldn't concern us so much as we wouldn't be funding it. "A Current Affair" is even worse than Media Watch, but at least it isn't taxpayer funded. We've been over this many, many times."
Last time I looked all the free-to-air media (TV, Radio and Print) was paid for by advertising, and that's paid for by consumers. So I'm funding three right-wing commercial networks none of which I watch (not to mention the Radio and Print), in comparison to one public broadcaster (ok, throw in a quarter for SBS) which I do watch and listen to (including, yes, David and Phil). Also, as I understand it the ABC's the cheapest of the lot by far.
However, if the "We've been over this many, many times" comment refers to the funding issue (rather than the MW/ACA issue) then I'd be grateful for a reference to past discussions.
Ross
Ross,
You're more than welcome to debate with Yobbo on this issue if you wish. But note, however, that I don't personally subscribe to the distinction he seeks to draw. As far as I'm concerned, journalistic accuracy/honesty are equally important issues whether on a commercial or public network. In both cases, as you point out, consumers/taxpayers are footing the bill and in neither case do we realistically have any choice in that. Moreover, commercial TV networks generate their advertising revenue as a result of a publicly-mandated monopoly over scarce TV frequencies. I wouldn't care whether lazy or dishonest journalism was taking place on A Current Affair or 7.30 Report: both are equally accountable, and both should be held to the same standards of honest, rigorous journalism. My problem with David Marr is that he manifestly DOESN'T hold his ideological mates to the same standards as his opponents. Dave Ricardo's attempt at justifying Marr's differential standards is, with respect, specious nonsense.
I've never heard anyone referring to another's words as "nonsense" do so "with respect" before...
Ken, you missed out on a golden opportunity here. Valentine's Day, "Adams Nailed", c'mon, it's just crying out for a joke...
Ken, I took the opportunity to alert Media Watch to your whinge about them. Here is their response
Dear Rex,
Thanks very much for sending your email.
Media Watch reads all the comments we receive and we check out all the story suggestions, so please keep sending yours. They are appreciated.
We aren't much concerned with the views of any bloggers, but we do review all the tips we receive (even those that come from bloggers) and assess them on merit.
Media Watch is on at 9.15pm Mondays and repeated at 1.45pm Tuesdays. Enhanced transcript and broadband versions can be found at www.abc.net.au/mediawatch
Yours sincerely,
Peter McEvoy
Executive Producer
Media Watch
I guess that says that they aren't too fussed about what you , Bunyip, Blair et al think of them. Maybe the blogosphere's hot air carries little weight in the real world.
Rex
Rex,
Your comment involves the tacit assumption that Marr and McEvoy are the "real world", and bloggers aren't. The fact that McEvoy didn't even bother to make a subsantive response, and is sufficiently arrogant as to dismiss audience perceptions with a comment "We aren't much concerned with the views of any bloggers" says a lot more about McEvoy than it does about bloggers. It doesn't especially worry me, because I stopped watching Media Watch long ago as a complete waste of time. Moreover, although the program is also a disgraceful waste of public money (given its blatant bias), it probably doesn't cost all that much to make. As a taxpayer I'm probably only contributing a few cents of Marr and McEvoy's salaries, and I can live with that (although I'd prefer not to have to do so).
Ross: Your argument is rubbish. If you don't like funding channel 9, Don't buy anything from companies that advertise on there. It's quite simple, really.
I know that I personally make concious choices to buy products depending on their advertising. E.G. I actively purchase PURA brand milk because of their sponsorship of the domestic cricket competition. Likewise, I avoid any product that has annoying/stupid advertisements. It may not make a difference, but you DO have a choice.
If you stop paying your taxes, the government turns up at your door and throws you in jail. This makes it quite difficult to not contribute money to David Marr's crusade.
I'd also like you to point out some instances of Right-Wing editorialising on the part of channels 7, 9 and 10 if you wish to continue to refer to them as "three right-wing stations".
Like the right-wing channel 10, who purchased "Good News Week", a political humour show featuring 3 dyed-in-the-wool socialists who cut their teeth on JJJ?
The ring-wing channel 9 who employ Mike Carleton and spend 60 minutes of every Sunday bashing Israel?
About the only show I can think of that has a consistent bias to the right is the AFL Footy Show, and that's hardly where people go to find their news.
Ken has a good point about the government enforced monopoly on TV frequencies. The argument that you can't avoid funding channel 9, however, is rubbish. Don't buy products that advertise there, if it's that important. At least you have a CHOICE.
That's right, it may not make a difference, but 'tis better in the mind to at least pretend your choice matters.
Gee whizz, 1/1000th of my purchase of a $5 "meal" from KFC could be put towards advertising on a channel I don't like! Well, what a disgusting waste!
Gee whizz, 1/100000000000th of my taxes could be put towards making a TV show I don't like. Well, what a disgusting waste!
Yobbo,
Thanks for your reply. Costs for advertising and marketing are built into everything we buy. While I can avoid some products as you state, I can't stop buying everything. And I have either no choice about it or a meaningless one.
My comment on "right-wing" networks was in the context of the discussion about the "left-wing" David Marr and Mediawatch. There is nothing comparable on the commercial networks. We'll just have to disagree about it.
Ross
I've got say that I find Dave Ricardo to be the smarmiest, most arrogant, condescending wanker ever to grace the pages of Blogosphere.
It's a fight to the finish between him and Chris Sheil...
This week's Media Watch includes the Adams misquoting. Actually, the last two weeks have highlighted a lot of interesting media ethics issues - the Adelaide shock jock caught in a strange arrangement with the town major et al., the Today/Sunday Sunrise programs blurring of editorial and commercial in their weather broadcasts, Alston's silly dossier.
Pardon the typo, I've just been back from a busy weekend in Batemans Bay. I'm buggered and in need of some sleep.
Well, I got my eight cents worth tonight. Told!
Well Ken, It looks like Media Watch took up your challenge last night, and did in fact point out Adams sloppiness on national TV. Furthermore they clearly do pay attention to the blogs since they mentioned the "bloggers circling Adams" meaning the little coterie of obsessoids that we all know so well.
Does that change your opinion now? Methinks not! What is does do however is demonstrate, and very clearly, no matter how biased you may think Media Watch is, that they will at least try to be balanced, which is more than can be said for the likes of Bunyip, Blair, Bolt and Uncle. (Yobbo doesn't count because he's just a Blair wannabee)
Rex
You call last night's effort "balanced", Rex? Whatever you do, don't ever try walking a high-wire without a strong safety net! Both the Professor and Uncle have done a fine demolition job on Marr and McEvoy in their blogs this morning and last night.
It's such a pity nobody sane reads them, though.
Are you including yourself, Graham? Personally I don't have a problem with your blanket diagnosis, because I came to terms with my own insanity years ago.
ignoring such an apparently clearcut and serious case of journalistic impropriety should provide conclusive proof for even the most credulously charitable that the program under David Marr's tutelage has become a worthless exercise in personal prejudice, bias and petulant bile.
So now that Media Watch hasn't ignored Adams' journalistic impropriety (and in fact noted an additional transgression in the same column), do you still stand by the hyperbolic comment above?
Jethro,
I didn't see the program but have read Bunyip and uncle's review of it as well as the transcript at the Media Watch website. As Bunyip et al pointed out, Marr couldn't resist prefacing the Adams item with remarks suggesting that RWDBs like Janet Albrechtsen are much dodgier, nor was there any mention of any of Adams' many previous inaccuracies/falsifications that Media Watch has until now studiously ignored. They had to be embarrassed kicking and screaming into focusing on Adams at all: it's a measure of the blogosphere's increasing clout IMO. I suppose Marr's coverage of Adams is better than nothing, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and it certainly won't cause me instantly to revise my low opinion of the program under Marr's guidance. I don't think my expressed verdict on Media Watch is even slightly hyperbolic: - if anything it's understated.
Jethro, you've just posted an erudite exposition over at Tim Dunlop's on how Marr didn't really have Adams in the main frame at all. Rather, you argued - quite elegantly I thought - that he was merely utilising Adams as a device in pursuit of his principal mission: attacking Michael Stutchbury's failure to disembowel Janet Albrechtson -preferably without anaesthetic, I'm sure. Now you turn up at Troppo - a no special access required blog since 2003 - demanding that Ken perform all manner of mea culpa's for not properly grovelling for a rectification that you don't think Marr actually made.
I'm a bit confused.
Geoff,
Thanks for the intepretation of my post on Surfdom. I didn't mean to imply that Marr was only attacking Adams as a vehicle for attacking Stutchbury.
I reckon Media Watch had no choice but to nail Adams, given that they had nailed Albrechtsen on similar charges. That they could do this and also stick the knife to Stutchbury seems to be a bonus (or, as Oscar Wilde would say, "On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure".
The Stutchbury reference has the effect of (a) cautioning those "baying for Adams' blood" that, based on past form, Stutchbury will take no action; and (b) indicating that it is hypocritical to demand more of Adams in this case than the RWDBs demanded of Albrechtsen under similar circumstances.
So, "a rectification that you don't think Marr actually made" is not what I believe. I hope I've made that point clearer.
Ken,
I'm not demanding any mea culpa, just wondering if you still stand by your assertion that Media Watch is "worthless exercise in personal prejudice, bias and petulant bile". I thought that comment was a bit hyperbolic for you, based on my previous readings of your posts, which seemed (to me) more measured and restrained.
If, given that MW's had done what you asked of it, you still consider your assertion to hold up (and in fact be understated), then that's fine, but kinda disappointing from my perspective, if you see what I mean.
So maybe I was hoping for a bit of a mea culpa, after all.
It was a tour de force by Marr. When I posted that he should ignore Adams, I forgot that he'd nailed Albrechtson for the same offence, so I suppose Marr's hand was forced.
But for him to tie the skanky one into the whole business, as he did last night, and lob a well aimed grenade at Stutchbury as well, was just sheer genius.
Hmmm. Sounds like a case of praising by faint damnation to me....
Rex: y'can't call Yobs a "Blair wannabe" -- he's shown a much greater reluctance to twisting the truth, and generally posts with far more evidence of intellect, too. Sure, he's flown off the handle a few times -- but it's a personal 'blog, and he's got no pretensions of writing in a journalistic (or pseudo-journalistic) style like wee Timmy or even Ken himself, after all.
Jethro/Dave: Albrechtsen's offence was much worse than Adams'. I'm not going to pretend to defend Adams here, but consider that Albrechtsen deliberately doctored quotations to help her try to push absurd lies, then spat the dummy when caught out at it. Adams may have done this in the past, may've done it in the future, but it's not what MW called him on.
Jethro (no Dave): Ken only said that a failure by MW to include Adams' fuck-up on the programme would be "conclusive proof" of bias (&c). It's reasonable to assume that Ken still believes MW and David Marr are biased, he just hasn't found the little piece of evidence that would make his case a slam-dunk...
It looks like the Haters are getting in on the conspiricy theory racquet themselves now.
Rex,
I know it's pointless to explain humour to people who don't get it, but Bunyip' imaginary conversation between Adams and Marr was intended to be funny. And indeed it was, or so I thought. I was more interested, however, in the rest of his post, which suggests that Adams has compounded his journalistic sins by claiming falsely that Bush's "next speech" actually made unequivocal claims about WOMD even if his State of the Union speech didn't. I haven't checked Bunyip's sources, but on the face of it he seems to make a pretty persuasive case. Of course, it's all a storm in a teacup, but it's sad to see a once quite worthwhile program like Media Watch (as it was under Stuart Littlemore and even Richard Ackland) descend into a seemingly permanent state of double standard bitchy bias.
Ken,
whaddya mean, "even" Richard Ackland? IMO, Ackland has been the best of the MW presenters, by far.
Littlemore was good, but in thr end his insufferable smugness was too much to bear. Ackland was straight, to the point, and, don't forget, scored the cash for comment hit. All right, perhaps his TV manner was a little stilted, but his content was excellent.
Paul Barry was a non event.
Marr ranks about equal with Littlemore.
I know it's pointless to explain humour to people who don't get it, but Bunyip' imaginary conversation between Adams and Marr was intended to be funny.
It's humourous, yes, but that's because Prof Bunyip's schtick is to use humour as the sugar around a bitter pill of cynicism. We get it, but can still disagree with the underlying point he's making.
I was more interested, however, in the rest of his post, which suggests that Adams has compounded his journalistic sins by claiming falsely that Bush's "next speech" actually made unequivocal claims about WOMD even if his State of the Union speech didn't. I haven't checked Bunyip's sources, but on the face of it he seems to make a pretty persuasive case.
Prof Bunyip is being overly pedantic, IMHO.
The substance of the complaints against Adams is that he changed a qualified statement from Bush about WMD into an unqualified statement, from "Saddam might have WMD" to "Saddam has WMD".
Adams admits guilt to "inadvertently mislaying a 'might' from Bush's State of the Union speech", but attempts to mitigate this on the grounds that if he "missed a 'might' in that speech so did the President in his next speech. There were no mights, no ifs, no buts, no doubts, no qualifications".
That Bush subsequently dropped any qualification is a matter of record. Prof Bunyip kindly provides such an example :
Therefore, on the basis of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein has to reveal and account for the weapons that we know he has.
This, and other examples (a quick google shows numerous such speeches), seem sufficient (to me at least) to show that whatever qualifications Bush used in the SOTU speech were soon dropped.
This is what Adams uses as his justification for "not misleading" when he removed the qualifications from Bush's SOTU speech. Such statements may not have literally been in George Bush's "next speech", but occur soon enough afterwards.
As Media Watch notes, however, even if Bush did remove qualifications from susbequent speeches, it's still no excuse for Adams' albrechting.
However, Prof Bunyip argues that what matters is not the changing qualifications per se, but the specific laundry list of WMD items that Adams initally claimed to be unqualified, and that such a laundry list had to be present in literally Bush's next speech.
Tosh, I reckon.