Slagging skepticlawyer

What a slimy, condescending, pox-ridden excrescence is ABC’s Media Watch program. And Phillip Adams isn’t far behind, judging by his response to Helen “skepticlawyer” Dale’s complaints about his characterisation of an interview with her that apparently never took place (“chilling” and “made my blood freeze”). On Monday Media Watch responded to Helen’s complaint about this sledge not by approaching Adams and putting him on the spot (as would have occurred with just about any other media figure who had perpetrated a significant falsehood – and a defamatory one at that) but just by quoting his response/s on his own Late Night Live program:

Here’s how he explained it on-air after Media Watch contacted him.

…and I made a passing ad-lib reference to a “chilling” encounter with Helen Demidenko and I point out that Demidenko was revealed a little later as a fictitious character, like Ern Malley. In that discussion I said Id interviewed Demidenko on Late Night Live. Well, Ive been involved in so many interviews and so many radio studios over so many years that I got it wrong. I found on checking the encounter was not on this program.

ABC, Radio National, Late Night Live with Phillip Adams, 19th September, 2007

Well, have the two ever met?

I understand that Helen in her latest incarnation insists we’ve never met. Well thats hard to establish a decade on but being neither chilling nor thrilling, I clearly made no impression on Helen at all.

ABC, Radio National, Late Night Live with Phillip Adams, 19th September, 2007

So Adams admits he was wrong and accepts that he never interviewed SL at all. But does he apologise for describing this non-interview as “chilling”? Not on your nelly. Has he ever even met SL? Well, he’s being “cute” about that too. Does Media Watch make any attempt at all to pin down Adams’ nasty, graceless evasions? Well, there’s this gentle “tut tut” right at the end of the item:

Surely Phillip Adams isn’t seriously saying that an interview he remembered so clearly just a few days agonow may have been just a chance encounter?

Otherwise, the segment mostly consists of condescending references to SL’s blogging involvement. Then, the unlovely Ms Attard segues seamlessly into a sledge of ABC Commissioner Board member Ron Brunton for daring to suggest to Helen, in a comment to one of her posts, that she should lodge a complaint about Adams’ conduct with the ABC. Apparently it’s quite inappropriate for an ABC Commissioner Board member to suggest any such thing, although Ms Attard doesn’t make any attempt to explain why. Moreover, when Brunton responded by pointing out that ABC Commissioners Board members have no role in investigating or adjudicating complaints, Attard neatly sidestepped into a gratuitous slur on SL’s honesty:

Well if Ron Brunton is brave enough to rely on the word of Helen Demidenko/Darville/Dale, given her rather colourful history of storytelling, well that’s one thing. …

Apparently, in the world of latte lefties like Adams, Attard and her producer Tim Palmer, people categorised however inaccurately as beyond the pale Tories (like SL and Ron Brunton) should always be treated with sneering suspicion and never afforded even the slightest hint of courtesy or fairness.

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Films and TV, Media, Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Slagging skepticlawyer

  1. Patrick says:

    great stuff Ken.

  2. Jc says:

    Always knew you were a straight shooter, Ken, good for you.
    You can’t find a nicer blogger commenter than SL and the abuse was totally undeserved.

  3. Ken,

    I think it is important to point out that Media Watch’s ostensible concern with Brunton’s comment was not that he shouldn’t suggest complaining.

    It’s quite reasonable for him to explain how someone should complain to the ABC.

    Rather it was that he shouldn’t prejudge the case – as he did.

    But should he have prejudged Phillip Adams’s comments as “egregious” before the ABC had the opportunity of investigating?

    I think that’s a fair point. Having pointed that out, the fact is that his pre-judgement turned out to be correct (or that we must presume so in the face of Adam’s obfuscation) calls for Media Watch to actually respond to the merits of the case – as you point out.

    Too bad they decided to just engage in a bit of routine slagging of HD – as did Adams.

  4. Adam says:

    As one of those ‘latte lefties’ (well, I just finished a latte not half an hour ago) I think this ‘sneering suspicion’ re: skepticlawyer is inappropriate. Put Adams on the spot, says I. He’s a big enough boy to be taken to task and put under real scrutiny. I’ll be filing this all under ‘Ambivalence re: Media Watch’.

  5. Brunton is a board member, not a “Commissioner”, Ken.

    This is worth highlighting, and I’ve been very critical of MW over the years (as James Farrell will remember!), and I’m not a fan of Adams, but I don’t think it needs the sneering at latte lefties tone.

  6. Ken Parish says:

    “Rather it was that he shouldnt prejudge the case – as he did.”

    It is quite normal, when addressing someone who forthrightly claims to have been misrepresented, to assume that their injured indignation is genuine. To do otherwise when speaking with them is to compound the offence, at least unless you’re in a position where you may later have to judge the situation in some official capacity in which case you obviously need to be much more circumspect. Brunton clearly assumed, as I did, that SL was telling the truth, and Adams’ admission (graceless and nasty though it is) indicates that our assumption was correct. Even a frequent media performer like SL would be unlikely to have forgotten a long radio interview with Phillip Adams.

    Moreover, Adams’ characterisation of his imagined interview with Helen as “chilling” is itself strongly indicative of his having confused her with someone else (probably sociopathic murderer Anu Singh). Whatever one may think about Helen’s notorious past (and I’ve concluded that those events were mere youthful follies, because they’re so at odds with my own experience of her over the last year or two), neither she nor her past exploits could sensibly be labelled “chilling”. Hence Ron Brunton was entirely justified in assuming that Helen’s complaint was a “true bill”. Since Monica Attard knew that to be the case when Media Watch went to air, why did she and producer Palmer nevertheless regard Brunton’s intervention as worthy of criticism?

    Finally, even if one accepts that Brunton should not pre-emptively have labelled Adams’ comments as “egregious” (and I don’t), this does nothing to mitigate Adams’ failure to apologise or Adams’ and Media Watch’s compounding of the offence by both gratuitously slagging Helen under the guise of investigating and responding to her entirely justified complaint.

  7. Grendel says:

    I agree Mark – sledging is sledging regardless of political affiliation and I’d ratehr see anyone with the capacity to think critically and objectively criticise sledging – regardless of the source or the target. Civility costs credibility nothing at all.

  8. derrida derider says:

    I’ve always liked the idea of Media Watch – there’s a possibility for real public service here. But I’ve always been utterly frustrated at its inability to do its job through its preference for snideness and it’s unwillingness to admit that it, too, takes some awful shortcuts.

    It’s far from the first time that favoured friends such as Adams have got an easy ride, and it spends an awful lot of time on trivial sins of commission by tabloids and regional papers rather than the far greater sins of omission prevalent amongst the big boys.

    And unfortunately Helen must expect unfair treatment for many years yet for having made fools of her “betters” (or, more accurately, having revealed them as fools).

  9. Ken Parish says:

    Mark (and Grendel)

    I don’t resile from the “latte left” observation at all. It clearly isn’t intended to condemn all who might see themselves as meriting that label. But Media Watch, even before Attard’s time, has long enjoyed a justified reputation for pulling its punches when dealing with “lefties” like Adams or David Marr, while going for the jugular whenever pursuing stories about media figures of a more right-leaning orientation. Its bias is blatant and seemingly ineradicable. Given Adams’ refusal to apologise to Helen despite knowing that he made a mistake, it’s reasonable to conclude that he shares a similar tribal mentality.

  10. Martha Maus says:

    I listend to the download and watched MW because of this issue and expected more from Phillip Adams. It is his responsiblity to correct what may have been an honest error.

    The onus to check his material is absolutely his; the wrong done by his comment is amplified by his reputation and experience. The initial injury to Skepticlawyer is compounded by his evasiveness and lack of respect.

  11. Ken,

    My point is a fairly minor one in the full context of the case. I quibbled in my comment because it seems to me that in the circumstances of what you are complaining about, it is important to report Media Watch’s criticism in a form they would recognise – and not immediately gainsay.

    I have no qualms with your saying this – which is the burden of your point.

    Even if one accepts that Brunton should not pre-emptively have labelled Adams comments as egregious (and I dont), this does nothing to mitigate Adams failure to apologise or Adams and Media Watchs compounding of the offence by both gratuitously slagging Helen under the guise of investigating and responding to her entirely justified complaint.

    I also agree that it is asking too much for Ron Brunton to use conditional expressions which call into question the veracity of the accuser and apparently wronged person (HD). But there are ways of finessing this. He could have said something like “From what you say you have been egregiously treated and you should formally complain . . . “.

  12. And DD, you and I agree 100% on MW – and I’ve said the same as you on this blog before, though not sure where the link is. Their schtick is ‘lets be as slick and snide and unfair to all the shonky media operators as they are to their victims’. Can’t see a lot of value in that.

    Derryn Hinch – Shame, Shame, Shame. Yawn, Yawn, Yawn.

  13. Ken Parish says:


    Re #11, I take your point.

    Re DD’s observation that the concept of Media Watch is a worthwhile one, brought undone by its own biases, pretensions and “slick and snide and unfair” shots. What they really need is to hand the program over to a couple of fearlessly fair-minded centrists …

  14. Why not throw Michael Duffy onto the scent for a year or so and see how he scrubs up? A mostly non-tribal rightie. Might stir things up a bit.

  15. Ken, you need to emulate Hendo and write 40 emails to the ABC a week complaining about Media Watch. It’s the tried and true method of effecting change in the programme!

    I’d recommend David Salter’s book The Media We Deserve for a good take on why the original model of MW was so good and exactly how it’s declined to the caricature it is too often now.

    in the world of latte lefties like Adams, Attard and her producer Tim Palmer

    I still think this adds nothing to your criticism. For all we know, Attard might be a Liberal voter. Most of us know little or nothing about Palmer. If you’re complaining that MW often errs by making sweeing generalisations about whole classes of people, then you don’t add but detract from your own point by doing the same yourself.

  16. Mark,

    Was MW so great when it got going?

    It was a breath of fresh air to be sure, but as the novelty wore off – like a bad sweet wine, you began to notice the shortcomings.

    Littlemore’s supercilious smartarsery and lack of accountability for the program set the tone. (I’m assuming he was the initial anchor and I saw it fairly close to its beginnings).

  17. Nicholas, it’s worth a look at Salter’s book (and it’s a good read anyway…) – it’s always a bit hard to judge these things at this distance in time.

  18. James Farrell says:

    Media Watch‘s criticism is Brunton is correct, but it’s a minor issue that shouldn’t have been allowed to distract from the injustice to Helen.

    I agree that the reference to Helen Demidenko/Darville/Dale and ‘her rather colourful history of storytelling’ was gratuitous, and smacked of blaming the victim.

    On the other hand, Adams was very publically held to account, and harmed only himself by his graceless concession. If Media Watch had ignored the whole thing, the RWDBs would all have been saying ‘What? Did you really imagine they would take it up?’ Well, I did. And they did.

    It’s not just ‘the concept of Media Watch’ that’s good. They actually do a very good job. The program is not ‘undone’ by the snideness (which I doubt has anything to do with politics – what would they know of Helen’s politics?), but it’s very regrettable.

  19. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    tend to agree with both DD and jimmy.

    Ken I find few people actuallu able to apologise for anything.

    I find it rather extraordinary that Adams had such a great memory of someone whom he has never met.

    I am told one would always remember young Helen

  20. Grendel says:

    I’m getting very concerned that anyone who drinks a latte in naturally assumed to be of the ‘left’. Perhaps it is an alliteration thing. If so, does this mean that ristretto drinkers are of the ‘right’?

    I wonder if Communists drink Correttos or Cappuccinos?

    Anarchists obviously drink Affogatos.

    I suspect that members of One Nation break the analogy through consumption of Blend 43. . .

    Back to the serious discussion.

  21. TimT says:

    Noooooooooo, Grendel. Anarchists drink green tea!

    Because proper-tea is theft, don’t you know…

  22. Grendel says:

    Of course!

    How could I have missed that. . .


  23. Adam says:

    Lol, TimT. It’s put me right off anarchism, though. The affogato was preferable.

    I tend to agree with Mark about the ‘latte lefties’ line adding nothing to the post.

    Also, derrida derider is spot on about the idea of MW being a good one, but often poorly executed.

  24. Terje (say tay-a) says:

    Having met Helen I would have to say that she is a very memorable person. She is commanding in both physical stature and in character. And I think she has handled this matter with the utmost grace.

    Having watched the Media Watch segment it did seem to me that Phillip Adams was given pretty soft treatment. He was allowed to leave hanging (without explaination) the impression that Helen was the one with the foggy memory.

  25. Geoff Honnor says:

    The tone was even worse than you indicate, Ken. It began with an actor reading Helen’s original Catallaxy comment about the matter, with heavy emphasis on Helen reporting that she’d been – “having a few coldies” (quel horreur!). The inclusion
    of Ron Brunton’s comment served absolutely no purpose other than to dilute the focus on Adams and Attard’s utterly unnecessary snide aside re Helen Dale’s personal integrity (how could anyone believe HER?) was surely among the televisual lowpoints of the year. Were it not for her profound lack of vivacity enmeshed in the persona of a didactic schoolmarm, you could have sworn that Monica was auditioning for ACA……

  26. Yep, that’s what MW is – ACA for the media. That’s what’s wrong with it.

    Trash talking to the trash talkers.

  27. Patrick says:

    For all we know, Attard might be a Liberal voter. Most of us know little or nothing about Palmer

    ok, ok, ok. There comes a point at which one is entitled to make assumptions. I wouldn’t assume that they are Labor voters, (although I might still bet on it) but Libs? Really? Truly? Do you believe that that is an even fancifully remote possibility?

  28. amortiser says:

    This “fertile imagination” thing is a bit catching. Some years ago, Queensland feminist, Dale Spender, wrote a column in the Courier Mail explaining how she was turned against the Liberal Party. When she was teaching high school in the 1960’s she had the traumatic experience of consoling students in her class who had been called up for National Service and would be soon sent off to fight and die in South Vietnam. These students and their friends were wailing and trembling with fear before her eyes.

    This experience had such an effect on her that she turned against the Liberal Party whom she and her parents had supported all their lives. Now Dale Spender may have had a serious objection to conscription and this may have changed her political outlook. I have serious objections to conscription too. However, she wrote a column based on a lie which she had to know was a lie.

    The problem for Dale Spender was that registration for national service did not take place until youths turned 20. The vast majority of students completed their high school years at age 17 or 18. She could not have experienced such an incident in a high school class. In her haste to make a colourful story, Spender failed to check the most basic facts surrounding the question of conscription.

    After referring the article to Media Watch, Stuart Littlemore called her on this gross misrepresentation and exposed it. There were no snide remarks, just a statement of the facts which showed quite clearly the dishonesty of Spender’s column.

  29. David Rubie says:

    James Farrell wrote:

    I agree that the reference to Helen Demidenko/Darville/Dale and her rather colourful history of storytelling was gratuitous, and smacked of blaming the victim.

    I get the feeling I was watching a different program to anyone else. I saw Adams get a kicking for his foggy memory/outright falsification. I saw Ms Dale having her own integrity called into question (and why not?). Nobody got hurt. Have the culture wars now completely destroyed any chance of being reasonably able to question character based on past actions? Did the conservatives win while I wasn’t looking?

  30. jimbirch says:

    How much worse was Adams’ response to MW than the usual?

    I’m not a big MW watcher but from what I’ve seen responses are either simply not forthcoming or plain p*ssweak. I’ve never any other models of rectitude from the Oz media (you choose) get up and say I just made it up, or whatever. MW just presents them with an implied draw-your-own-conclusions.

    I’m not trying to restore Adams’ hagiography, it’s just that it seems business as usual to me. Accountability is psychologically tough; too tough for our commentariat. Latte or otherwise.

    But it is good to see it happen occasionally elsewhere, even on big issues:

    “Similarly, the U.S. media have engaged in a good deal of self-criticism over their coverage of the war. The New York Times apologized for its prewar coverage of nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thomas Ricks, The Washington Post’s defence correspondent, lambasted his own paper’s editorial page for its pro-war boosterism in his book on the occupation. Bob Woodward, the Post’s most famous journalist, acknowledged that he was part of the “group think” that helped sell the war. Bill Moyers devoted an entire PBS broadcast to the role of journalists in marketing the war. Dan Rather, of CBS, admitted that there was no excuse for his own performance in this regard.”

    – James Dobbins in (recommended)

    I’m yet to see anything remotely like that in the pages of the Oz. Mind you, I’m not looking at that too hard either, so it is just possible I missed a humble Greg Sheridan mea culpa. Bugger.

  31. Niall says:

    You ought to be more careful climbing onto high horses, Ken. The fall may well kill you. Are you intimately acquainted with just who Messrs Adams & Dale/Demidenko have and haven’t met over the years? Just how do you know for sure & certain who’s telling the porkie and who isn’t?

    Simple answer being that you can’t, so why the faux affront? Have you ever considered, for example, that there may be blood between the two proponents which you’ll never become aware of, hence the tete e tete. It’s all too easy to take sides. Personally, I thought it a complete & utter non-event, but was amused to note that Demidenko/Dale/Darville/Dunnowhosheisandcouldcareless made her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld. Why not from CT, which is supposedly so fair & balanced?

    Ya gotta arhsk these kweschuns, pardner, afore ya climb up inta yer saddle.

  32. Jason Soon says:

    Personally, I thought it a complete & utter non-event, but was amused to note that Demidenko/Dale/Darville/Dunnowhosheisandcouldcareless made her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld

    Because Catallaxy is her blog-home and has always been her blog home, dopey dopey Niall. skeptic only posts missing link on club troppo.

    what possible relevance is it other than that? and no other *contributor* on Catallaxy has ever picked a bone with Phillip Adams (and no commenters are not contributors otherwise the collective IQ of Club Troppo would be brought down 40 points by your presence). Catallaxy is a blog I started up and I have probably rarely if ever mentioned Adams before – you’re welcome to search the archives. If anything I may have praised him once for taking a consistent line on free speech.

  33. Niall says:

    Ya don’t say, Jason. It’s like this matey. I couldn’t give a fig if you slag off Adams every second day of the week and twice on Sundays, or just how many times you claim the ABC should be made more accountable/profitable/answerable to the eight-cents-a-day tax payers. If you’d actually read and understood the crux of my comment, you’d be aware that I was pointing out to our centrist friend that he was behaving anything but over a matter which he knows nothing more about other than what was aired on Media Watch.

    Predictably, I note you’ve risen to protect one of your own, while you’d be none the better acquainted with whether this woman has or hasn’t met Adams at some time in her, or his, dim distant past, yet you’re all too ready to slag off all comers of an opposing ideological stance. Just love your comment on your own graffiti wall, by the way.

    Dopiest comment of the week, nay the year must go to Niall Hyper-idiot Bannerman. He thinks hes come across some conspiracy. If he ever any smarter, his IQ would be room temperature

    Completely missed the point while living up to my expectations of your kind to the nth degree. Well done, son!

  34. Jason Soon says:

    It was you who made the the fact that Helen decided to post her response to Adams on Catallaxy the issue, not me. Live and die by your own words. You did it here as well

    I think you should have identified the website you displayed Dale/Demidenko as having written on/from as Catallaxy, rather than simply displaying what appeared to be an unidentified webpage. Catallaxy, as almost anyone in the Australian Blogosphere will confirm, is decidedly right-wing in expression. Inhabit the ‘sphere for even the shortest period and you’ll soon discover that right-wing despise left-wing and never hesitate to slag off those they identify as ‘lefties’. Phillip Adams is identified by the more rabid of right-wing bloggers as fat phil, or phat phil. Indeed, just about any derogatory nominative will do, as long as it’s not Phillip Adams. Pointless, but revealing none the less.

    So what exactly is revealing? Tell us.

    And how else am I supposed to interpret your original comment to Ken?

    Personally, I thought it a complete & utter non-event, but was amused to note that Demidenko/Dale/Darville/Dunnowhosheisandcouldcareless made her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld. Why not from CT, which is supposedly so fair & balanced?

    So you were alleging some sort of conspiracy to ‘get Fatty’ whereas the fact of the matter is Adams fired the first shot and Helen was entitled as a citizen to respond to Adams libelling her using taxpayer funded premises.

    You then go around the ABC and then now Club Troppo thinking you’ve found some smokin’ gun because Helen didn’t post this on Troppo but decided to post this on Catallaxy instead totally unaware that Helen has never been, with the exception of Missing Link posts, a regular Troppo contributor.

    Busted, and no mealymouthed sophism can paint you out of your fool’s corner.

  35. Jason Soon says:

    And did I miss your oh-so-incisive point here as well, Hyper-idiot Bannerman?

    There’s much more to this tale than your article exposed. I do think you should have done much more spade-work on this one. Who knows, you might have uncovered a real Media Watch scandal in the blog world.

    Ooh! shock! scandal! Helen Dale answers charges at her regular blog home.

    Nial, the Inspector Closeau of the Blogsphere

  36. Geoff Honnor says:

    “Are you intimately acquainted with just who Messrs Adams & Dale/Demidenko have and havent met over the years? Just how do you know for sure & certain whos telling the porkie and who isnt?”

    Of what possible relevance is this? Both MW and Phillip Adams were both (finally) pretty clear on the fact that Adams hadn’t interviewed Helen – on LNL or off it.

  37. david tiley says:

    The snideness of MW annoys me too, and it is a word which precisely defines the unease I feel.

    I think it is a combination of sheer lack of resources to do anything better, plus a strong sense that the gang lives in a particular kind of moralistic, cardiganey, second-hand SAAB kind of bubble. A lot like me, really – except for one very important difference. I constantly take the piss out of myself, and this lot is always sanctimonious.

    I think it is often a rhetorical trick to solve a problem. It can be very difficult to simply explain what is wrong with an example, so they resort to a “nudge, nudge, know what I mean” system of shared references.

    For instance: You either do or don’t get why the Adams reference is so ugly. Partly it is to deal with the subtle(ish) question of the use of the word “chilling”, which is both a cliche, is somehow triggered by the fact that Helen has a cool Northern Europeanish exterior, is connected in his brain with the Holocaust, and actually refers to another person he interviewed for whom the word is actually not a cliche.

    In this case, MW didn’t pick up on this level at all – it was left to people on this thread to make the connection. But you can see how they bundle a long set of references into the one sourish little moue.

    I really enjoy Adams on the radio, btw. For me it is like sucking the liqueur centres out of chocolates. But he is hugely self-confident and has a substantial ego which warps his ability to say to Helen that he was completely bloody wrong, maligned her in the process, and made a dill of himself.

  38. adrian says:

    This thread neatly encapsulates a lot of what is wrong with the blogsphere:

    1. Incosequential subject matter that most couldn’t give a stuff about;
    2. Post that displays moral outrage completely out of proportion with alleged offence/outrage;
    3. Valid and pertinent comments derailed by juvenile bickering and name calling;
    4. Special pleading.

  39. Yobbo says:

    Good to see some things never change…

    ABC still biased to point of ridiculousness.

    Niall still the biggest fuckwit in the blogosphere.

    It’s comforting in a way.

  40. Niall says:

    Jason, I can lead you to the words, but I can’t force you to accept your own inadequacies.

  41. Niall says:

    Thanks Yobb. Always pleased to disappoint

  42. adrian says:

    I hadn’t read david tilley’s excellent comment, which is an obvious exception to the points I was making, but it was good of yobbo to confirm them.

  43. her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld

    On referring to Catallaxy as a right-wing haven, I find this irritating. It’s a Libertarian blog, and Libertarians have more in common with Social Democrats than anyone might like to admit, it’s just we think the free market leads to the liberal society that you think the government and tax-payers should legislate and pay for. Calling it a right-wing haven incinuates it is conservative, it’s not, and there is a difference.

    I know Andrew Norton has the same complaint about people referring to the CIS as a ‘conservative’ think-tank (it isn’t).

    As for Media Watch, I think the problem is, a show designed to adress dishonesty in the media is being run by card-carrying, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy believing, Lefties, who are naturally inclined to beleive the only dishonesty in the media comes from the conservative side, and any dishonesty in the left is justified by its end, which is to expose the VRWC.

    To be taken seriously, MW needs to be run by genuine centrists with a genuine respect for the role of an honest and accountable media. Too much to ask of Aunty, I suspect.

  44. Far be it for me to prove adrian’s point further, but Stephen, for a blog that apparently has much in common with social democrats, Catallaxy spends a lot of time bagging them. I’ll resist the temptation to quote from the *ahem, lively* comments threads, but I don’t see how (for instance) Jason’s attacks on Julia Gillard are anything other than right wing:

    If the target of Catallaxy is “statists”, there are an enormous number of them in the government ranks, but the cheap shots are almost always reserved for the Labor Party.

    Then there’s Rafe…

  45. Niall says:

    define ‘genuine centrists’. You might as well define the mythical length of string.

  46. I heard Adams make the “chilling” comment and was hoping he’d elaborate as it sounded like it would have been an interesting interview. So not real. pity.

  47. saint says:

    What an absolute bunch of weasel words and lies from Adams. And what a pathetic program MW has become, not to mention the singularly unattractive characters of Palmer and Attard.

  48. David Rubie says:

    Ok, who summoned the Bird? Oh, it was me (sorry folks).

    Have you been asleep since 1992 Mr Bird? I know skepticlawyer is some kind of protected species/pet at Catallaxy, but everywhere else she’s the dumb kid that lied about her background to sell a book, then plagiarised rubbish off the internet because she was too lazy to write her own column for the Courier Mail.

    I’m sure she’s very happy to know you are a fanboi of hers. I’m certainly a great fan of yours and enjoy your Catallaxy contributions greatly.

  49. Ken Parish says:

    It’s getting nasty and silly, so i’m closing the thread.

  50. Pingback: The Road to Surfdom » Blog Archive » Spinning the news

  51. Pingback: Skepticlawyer » Below the bottom of the barrel

  52. Pingback: Skepticlawyer » ‘This is a sad day for adequate research’

Comments are closed.