Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
With the 2012 U.S. election campaign now highlighting truth vs falsehood, perhaps this may become a focus in Australia in 2013, writes Alan Austin.
U.S. vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan: failed by the fact checkers.
THE MEDIA in the United States has responded with astonishing unanimity to last week’s bizarre speech by Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Even Fox News – cheer squad for the Republican Party – has a headline “Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words”.
The three words, claims the article, are ‘dazzling’, ‘deceiving’ and ‘distracting’.
Influential website Politiscoop then observed:
“The bottom line is this: When Fox News fact checks you and calls you out for being a liar, then yes, your attempt at winning over America was an epic fail.”
This has brought into high relief the split in the United States evident in Australia for some time — between those in public life who are regarded as truthful and those who are not.
Could this be the new political divide? Could this replace the old conservative versus reformist? Left versus right? Capitalist versus socialist?
Certainly left and right no longer have the meaning they once had. Malcolm Fraser was characterised as a right-wing extremist when he assumed power as Prime Minister of Australia in historic circumstances in 1975. He is now a doyen of the left with his outspoken criticisms today’s conservatism – on both sides of the Parliament – on Indigenous affairs, refugees and overseas aid. Actually, Fraser has actually not changed his position much at all.
In the US, recent Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have arguably been to the right of earlier Republicans, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald Ford.
Would it be a positive move in public life if truth versus falsehood did replace the old dichotomies?
A case can certainly be made that civic life is the poorer for having people in positions of power who routinely dissemble and lie. Especially when bolstered by influential media which repeat and amplify the fabrications.
The specific lies told by vice-presidential candidate Ryan in his speech at the Republican convention in Florida are listed in The Washington Post in the column headed “Paul Ryan’s breathtakingly dishonest speech”.
These follow claims that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is himself routinely economical with the truth. Alternative news outlet Mother Jones highlighted this with the article “Mitt Romney sure does lie a lot, doesn’t he?”
Incumbent President Barack Obama, in contrast, is generally depicted as a politician who tells the truth. Will this distinction between the two sides be a factor with the voters in November? Time will tell.
The difference in the way the two sides are characterised on this issue in the US is challenging the old cliché “all politicians lie”.
Certainly, Australia can boast many prominent leaders who have been widely respected for their truthfulness. Can anyone recall a direct lie from John Hewson, Tim Fischer, John Anderson, Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown, Kevin Rudd or Warren Truss — to name just nine past or present party leaders?
Yes, perhaps a few changes of position and unfulfilled promises from some of them — but not direct lies.
Of course, Australia has its offenders as well. It was a Senator from his own side who labelled former Prime Minister John Howard “the Lying Rodent”. This followed a period when several assertions from the then PM were shown not to have been truthful.
The current Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been characterised in social networks and some sections of the mainstream media as “Ju-liar”.
This seems to be based primarily on a broken promise made in the run-up to the 2010 election:
“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead …”
Whether or not there are excuses for this based on the election outcome – which did not deliver a Labor majority – is a hotly-contested debate.
The Opposition Leader has his own struggles in this area, as are now well-documented. In 2008, he appears to have lied point blank to ABC Lateline’s Tony Jones in response to a question about a meeting with Cardinal George Pell.
Later, he changed his own position on carbon emissions from what was once clearly in favour of “a simple carbon tax”:
Why?
Mr Abbott’s struggles with the truth were discussed at some length in a memorable interview with Kerrie O’Brien in May 2010:
Yet they have continued. Just last week, veteran journalist Laurie Oakes in the Herald Sun commenced his column with the withering opener: “Let’s not beat about the bush. Tony Abbott tells lies.”
Will this pattern harm the electoral appeal of the Opposition Leader? Will it impact his appeal as party leader to his parliamentary party colleagues? Will the perception that the Prime Minister has lied to the electorate cost her and her party the next election?
With the 2012 election in the US now highlighting truth vs falsehood, perhaps this may be a focus in Australia in 2013. We shall soon see.
7 Comments
Is truth versus lies the new political divide? Let's hope so. #AusPol USpol http://t.co/L78ZHYx5
Of course Ryan was found lying to the populace- but he won’t care because he believes his own lies. Has anyone tried to educate one who so solidly believes in what he says is true whether he speaks the truth or not?
Excellent article, Alan. Perhaps if we still had Kerry O’Brien and a few more of his calibre things wouldn’t be so bad now. Journalists are our first line of defence against lying politicians.
It also does not help that the word “lie” is not allowed in Parliamentary protocol. If our elected leaders can’t call out liars then how are they expected to keep each other in line?
I doubt Ryan believes what he says but promoting fibs is now done routinely in the USA and they get away with it.
And let us not forget the ghastly Fox News role in decimating public discourse in that once great bastion of freedom and excellent journalism, now trashed.
The greatest achievement of the Republican Party courtesy of a cowered media is to get millions of people to vote against their own best interests.
Alan, I feel that you have perpetuated the false claim that Gillard lied about carbon Tax by omitting her from your list of leaders who have not been shown to have lied to the electorate. As you say, her subsequent adoption of a Carbon Price may be construed as a broken promise, but not a lie. You don’t nominate any other occasion when she has been shown to have lied. I certainly can’t recall any such occasion.
On the evidence, I think that, unlike Abbott, she deserves to be on the ”honest” side of the political ledger.
When we point out the Abbott lies, his supporters trot out the usual “oh, both sides do it” or “all politicians are liars,” and then try to back up this assertion with Gillard’s supposed lie about not introducing the “carbon tax.” However, this is a mischaracterization of what Gillard has done.
You have provided clip of Gillard saying she would not introduce a carbon tax, but this five-second clip is devoid of context. In the Abbott clip where he talks about “if you want to introduce a carbon tax,” he argues for a tax on petrol, which would be an effective tax on consumers. Acting on the advice of Prof. Garnaut, Gillard has rejected a carbon “tax,” which is what Abbott’s suggested petrol levy would be, in favour of a $23/tonne price on carbon.
It’s been fairly obvious to me that there is a clear political divide in the specific language used on this issue. Labor (with one or two exceptions), most Independents and all the Greens refer to the “carbon price.” I’ve heard Emerson use both “carbon price” and “carbon tax,” and I think Ferguson wavers a bit. I think I might have heard Xenophon use the term “carbon tax.”
The Opposition consistently uses the term “carbon tax,” and so does most of the media. I have never heard the term “carbon price” used by any journalist from 9 or 7. I’m not sure about Ten. Some of the folks on The Project are progressive, but recently I’ve watched them use the term “carbon tax.”
The ABC is an interesting case. Some of their journalists say “price,” while others say “tax.” A few months ago Greg Combet set out to correct the media, telling Emma Alberici that it was a carbon price, not a tax, but Alberici is a stick-in-the-mud. She still calls it a tax to this day.
I saw another show on the ABC – I think it was Lateline – in which Tony Jones interviewed Greg Combet. Jones started out by calling it the “carbon Tax,” then out of deference to Combet, changed to calling it a “carbon price,” then moments later, reverted to calling it a “carbon tax.” After that, Combet gave up on his educational campaign.
I would like to get Australia’s journalists corraled in a room, and made to explain why they use the term that they do, and show that they are not deliberately playing into Abbott’s hands… but I know it’s never going to happen.
I am Aust born, almost 73, An OAP. For maybe the last 3y I have been thinking and writing down, how to get started 3 separate groups [Local Govt, State Gov, Aust Gov. candidates] for Qld about 80 TRUTHFUL in their political claims / statements, and suitable as Inde candidates. MY thoughts cover, but not limited to, [a] Each candidates written and signed contractual offer to the voting public, about 1 month before the voting date, including, [b] Pay, for their 3 or 4 year term, [c] hours, about 40 hr week, plus [paid] overtime, for example, attending evening meetings, [d] unquestionable truthfulness in regard to their political statements, OR immediate correction, [e] the discussed, possible use of a lie detector, polygraph, by the candidate/ politician, [f] the voters to be paid for good money saving ideas, [g] Solar power, and many more voters thoughts on improving Aust, some ideas almost free to implement, saving in Aust, alleged, multimillions of dollars. [h] Re crime, YOU caused the damage YOU pay, possibly over years, with bank interest. By the direct paid involvement of Centerlink, the ATO and Aust IMMIG. [i] location of overstaying foreign “tourists” by mandatory requirement for all employers to immediately view their passport, and or, notify ATO Aust IMMIG, of the name of a person who has just started working for their business. [j] Refugees, As there are, I think more than 200 million genuine refugees, ALL wishing to come to Aust, …. tomorrow, and there are at least 2 groups of voters those for and those against, a possible help could be those Aust voters for the refugees, can house and feed a non-related, IMMIG chosen by number, refugee family, until they are clearly financially established, thereby personally paying for their wish to help ALL refugees. The others might be personally helping the Salvation Army, or another worthy cause. What comments, don’t hold back. Tell me if you think I am dopey and should be ‘certified’.
Thanking You
orderly1313