Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
How does propaganda work? To demonstrate, Gee has prepared the following slides using some random examples — Murdoch media, Christopher Pyne and James Ashby.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
9 Comments
well done. now x that by 100000 repetitions in the mainstream media and thought control/propaganda achieved.
And so Fairfax have decided to grovel in the gutter with News Ltd as hackette Lenore Taylor dredges up the non-story of the PMs associations 17 years ago despite her law firm saying move on,nothing to see here.
Taylor has re-hashed the rubbish promoted by a known con-man and infers, against all principals of natural justice that because questions are asked (ie :allegations) the accused must prove innocence.
I actually want Taylor and her clone McClymont to frigging well apologise for Fairfax’s ridiculous campaign against Craig Thomson but these gutter level cowards never will. And they wonder why the general public, and I mean everybody these days, places this lot a few level below used car salesmen and real estate agents.
The bonus is that this vicious campaign based on thin air is simply being viewed by female voters as the price Gillard must pay for having the temerity to be a woman.
And of course if Gillard did defend herself she probably be accused of going “feral” like that piece of work McClymont claimed Thomson had by finding some relief yesterday.
But here are some answers that are needed : we all know (don’t we?) that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had something to do with the jailing of Pauline Hanson and it’s about time these echo chamber typists re-examined the role of the man who desires the top job
I had to turn McClymont off the radio after that ‘feral’ tag and how she then proceeded to avoid any of the substance of the issue and make chit chat about how ‘hard’ it is for the poor journo who only gets the report at 5:30pm and has to file before deadline. That was the point of BS overload for me. A newsflash for the useless hack McClymont: There is no pressing urgency for you to get your opinion out immediately. In fact, you might actually have a shot at being a journalist if you spent the time to properly investigate the 1100 page document BEFORE publishing a ‘story’. I can only assume that what she printed today is completely uninformed, agenda driven tripe. True to form.
The Australian on August 18, 2012, published an opinion by its National Chief Correspondent, Hedley Thomas. The piece was titled “Revealed: Julia Gillard lost her job after law firm’s secret investigation”.
The gist of the story was
“Julia Gillard left her job as a partner with law firm Slater & Gordon as a direct result of a secret internal probe in 1995 into controversial work she had done for her then boyfriend, a union boss accused of corruption”,
and it was based, according to Hedley Thomas, on information given by “Nick Styant-Browne, a former equity partner of the firm, broke a 17-year silence yesterday to reveal that the firm’s probe included a confidential formal interview with the Prime Minister – then an industrial lawyer – on September 11, 1995, which was ‘recorded and transcribed’ “.
Thomas repeatedly gives credit of his revelations to Styant-Browne with repeats of “Styant-Browne said” and a “Mr Styant-Browne revealed yesterday” and “Mr Styant-Browne also revealed”.
There is no mention of Peter Gordon by Hedley Thomas.
On 21 August 2012, Peter Gordon of Arnold Bloch Leibler released a media statement. A copy can be found here:
http://australianpolitics.com/2012/08/21/statement-by-peter-gordon.html
Peter Gordon expresses his extreme disappointment with Styant-Browne for providing a copy of the “unchecked, privileged and confidential first-draft communication to The Australian newspaper. This was done without my knowledge or consent. I am, to say the very least, extremely disappointed that this has occurred.”
One would think that Peter Gordon’s media statement was sufficient to invalidate Hedley Thomas’s explosive scoop which was based on information supplied by Styant-Brown. Not for The Australian for it will milk a story if a drop of propaganda remains that could wound the Labor party.
So, in The Australian of today, 22 August 2012, Paul Kelly has written an opinion piece titled “Gillard’s conduct and judgment in public spotlight” in which he states the following:
“The stories published in The Australian by Hedley Thomas in recent days are neither hearsay nor recycling of scuttlebutt. They are based on previously undisclosed documents. The conclusions by Thomas have been balanced and measured. And they demand answers from the Prime Minister.”
Perhaps Paul Kelly should have read Peter Gordon statement, which is also printed in today’s Australian, prior to claiming Thomas’s conclusions as “balanced and measured”.
After reading Peter Gordon’s media statement I cannot, for some unknown reason, find myself agreeing with Paul Kelly that “the conclusions by Thomas have been balanced and measured. And they demand answers from the Prime Minister.“
Also, Dennis Shanahan, one of The Australian’s kyklops also wrote an opinion this morning. Mr Shanahan, in his customary one-eyed form did not fail to disappoint:
“The media – and for that matter Tony Abbott and the Coalition – have legitimate, pertinent and timely reasons to seek answers from Julia Gillard about the circumstances of her departure from Slater & Gordon in 1995.
The government’s specious defences and stonewalling attitude are ensuring the episode will continue to be scrutinised and publicised and, as a consequence, doing the Prime Minister a political disservice.”
and
“It is fair and reasonable for politicians and the media to test the character, experience, judgment and integrity of those who hold or seek to hold the highest office.”
We waited with baited breath for The Australian to “test the character, experience, judgment and integrity” of Tony Abbott.
It’s called balanced reporting.
And Slater & Gordon have denied Styant-Brown’s claim and as a solicitor, Styant-Brown should be struck off.
For any lawyer past or present (or retired) to divulge what he claims is confidential legal information is a disgrace and undermines the concept of lawyers being able to advice clients fearlessly with honesty.
Nor can Julia Gillard comment on any matter pertaining to a present or former client.
Hedly Thomas should know this as should the pompous Paul Kelly. As for Q&A on Monday even posing a question about Gillard questioning Kelly’s source as those these hacks whose colleagues in the UK are facing serious criminal charges are untouchable, what a joke.
Just to demonstrate News Ltd’s shocking bias-a Telegraph journalist tweeted during Q&A how she had observed at the Centotaph on Anzac Day that Doug Cameron was no-where to be seen. Petty and vindictive.
Also, Oscar,
Lenore Taylor of SMH jumped on the bandwagon this morning with her “Case raises new questions over Gillard’s conduct as a layer – A two-decade old controversy that has dogged the PM is bubbling anew.”
It’s only “dogged” because the MSM wants it to be “dogged”.
Taylor said:
“The former partner Peter Gordon also made a statement saying there was ‘no explicit or indirect evidence’ Gillard was involved in any wrongdoing.”
And just when I was considering her to be fair and objective on this matter she comes in with the big BUT.
“But according to a draft of Gordon’s statement, released by Styant-Browne without Gordon’s authorisation, he also said the partnership had been ”extremely unhappy with Ms Gillard” and ”considered that proper vigilance had not been observed”.
At this point, for me, she lost all credibility.
correction, should be:
Gillard’s conduct as a lawyer
Hedley Thomas continues to bark up the wrong tree with an opinion in today’s Australian titled “Julia Gillard set up ‘work safety’ entity that was a slush fund”.
And on The Australian’s webpage of today is the following:
“Apology to the Prime Minister
• From: The Australian
• August 23, 2012 10:05AM
AN article in today’s The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago.
This is wrong.
The Australian apologises for the error.”
The Australian just can’t help itself.