This article was written by the human contact lens treatment plant The Honourable Dr Craig Emerson MP
Sunday, 30 December 2012
There are many who would consider a relevant and important fact "in issue" and worthy of declaration herein is that the author has a potential (and possibly realised) conflict of interest, that may impinge upon his ability to retain the clear-eyed, disinterested position that commentators unburdened by romance and love lost (or surreptitiously maintained) may in the circumstances be reasonably expected to have.
In other words Craig you should probably say you've been having an adulterous affair with Julia.
This composition was published in http://australianpolitics.com/2012/12/23/subtlety-lost-craig-emerson-australian-media.html
Here it is in its incomplete glory.
Text of an opinion piece by the Minister for Trade, Craig Emerson.
At Sydney University in the early 1970s a course simply called “Government” was offered to economics, arts and law students. It was a time of social upheaval and the election of the Whitlam Government had ended 23 years of conservative rule. The Murdoch press had backed a change of government.
My tutor in Government, Lex Watson, a gay rights activist, had set us a task: to identify bias in the media. But as left-wing as Lex was, the six-week project wasn’t about left versus right, it was about the techniques used by the print media to slant a story to suit an editorial position.
During those six weeks I learned many of the established techniques, simply by comparing the treatment of the same story in different newspapers. Placement on an odd-numbered page gave a story greater prominence than on a left-hand side, even-numbered page. A front-page story in one newspaper might have been well back in another. An otherwise balanced story might be thrown out of balance by the editor’s headline. And oh so important, an archived photo of a scowling or cheerful politician could be retrieved from the files to capture the editor’s intent.
The story I followed was Attorney-General Lionel Murphy’s authorised police raid on ASIO headquarters. As an 18-year-old, I wasn’t equipped to make a judgement on the merits of the case, but I sure could identify all the tricks deployed by the different newspaper outlets.
How is this remotely relevant today?
Well, the tricks – er, techniques – haven’t changed all that much. They are utilised every day and new ones deployed as well. But what has changed is the level of subtlety: today there is none.
While media outlets 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago would feel compelled to cover something considered a good story, if today’s editors judge it doesn’t accord with their own position they will simply ignore it – or at best stick in with the comics for the kids, but ahead of the sports section lest the punters cotton onto it.
Before going to some recent striking examples, it should be made clear that editors’ tricks don’t necessarily constitute bias by the journalists. Journalists can only file or record stories; whether and where they are aired depends on the hierarchy ruling them. But nor would it be correct to say that all journalists are scrupulously balanced in their reporting. They know the tricks of the trade as well, and some don’t hesitate to use them.
In defence of journalists, online technology demands that they do much more than they were expected to do 40 years ago. A breaking story requires instant reporting not only by the electronic media but by print journalists as well.
And if competing head-to-head with radio and television weren’t enough, print journalists these days are expected to engage with social media, blogging, tweeting and video-streaming their stories as they continually update their web sites.
So, while information technology has liberated them from the old, clunky news-gathering and filing processes, the extra time is dedicated not to analysis but delivering the same content into an increasing number of formats.
Even still, considered commentary is often required within hours.
These great expectations of journalists are being applied at a time when traditional print media is in decline and jobs are insecure. Pressure on advertising revenues in an increasingly atomised market leaves little money to fund dedicated investigative units.
Editors are calling the shots as never before and journalists are expected to comply with editorial direction.
As in the early 1970s it’s useful to follow just a couple of stories to illustrate the bigger point.
Story One is the Gillard-AWU saga. Story Two is the Ashby-Slipper-LNP court case.
Story One has been around since 1995 when a dude named Gude raised it under privilege in the Victorian Upper House. No wrongdoing was established against Gillard 17 years ago and – after many months of investigative reporting by The Australian’s Hedley Thomas – no wrongdoing has been established against her to this day.
But this hasn’t stopped the print media running front-page stories that the Prime Minister still has questions to answer, such as ‘did she write a letter almost 20 years and why doesn’t she recall it?’
Nor has it stopped the Opposition claiming the Prime Minister of Australia is a criminal, despite Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s failure in the 15 minutes granted under parliamentary privilege to make the case. The best he could come up with was “conduct unbecoming”, but this was good enough to warrant front-page coverage and a torrent of commentary about both sides’ mud-slinging.
Almost every Coalition question in the final parliamentary week (the single exception being a question on a UN Palestinian resolution) was on the 17 year-old AWU allegations. All Labor questions were about policy. During that final Parliamentary week, the Government introduced or finalised legislation relating to education reform, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Murray-Darling Basin plan, the recovery of lost superannuation savings, gambling reform and a trade deal with Malaysia. None of these were adjudged a significant story by newspaper or television editors.
The media claim of mud-slinging all round was based on the Prime Minister’s so-called misogyny speech. This was an extemporaneous speech given in response to a motion by the Opposition Leader during which he asserted the Prime Minister condoned sexist text messages sent by the Speaker, Mr Slipper. The Prime Minister remonstrated that she would not be lectured on sexism by Mr Abbott who, she asserted, had a poor track record on his treatment of women.
Many journalists and editors took exception to the Prime Minister defending herself in this way. The Australian editorialised against it and claimed, with no evidence, that the more than two million YouTube viewers of the speech were inner-city lefties or foreigners.
Story Two broke on 21 April 2012 with a Daily Telegraph splash setting out “explosive allegations” of sexual harassment and misuse of Cabcharge entitlements by the Speaker, Mr Slipper, “in a major new crisis for the Gillard Government”. It received similar treatment by other News Limited newspapers and was followed up by the electronic media. The story ran for weeks, indeed months.
So when the Federal Court brought down its scathing judgement on the James Ashby sexual harassment complaint against Mr Slipper, media interest in the story surely would have been both intense and sustained. Logically, if unsubstantiated claims about the Prime Minister’s behaviour as a lawyer almost 20 years ago were hot news at end-November 2012, then proof that Coalition identities had lied just a few months ago would no doubt make irresistible copy. After all, the judge had found that Ashby and former Coalition Cabinet Minister and LNP candidate for Slipper’s seat, Mal Brough, had collaborated to damage Slipper, advance Brough and change the numbers in the House of Representatives to the benefit of the LNP. In a hung parliament, this was tantamount to changing the Government of Australia.
Alas, it was not to be. Some outlets thought the adverse findings against Ashby and Brough were newsworthy. They included most ABC news and current affairs outlets, the commercial television news bulletins, The Australian (in parts) and the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
But the News Limited tabloids, especially The Daily Telegraph – having splashed day after day with the original Ashby allegations against Slipper – went cold on the story. The Daily Telegraph couldn’t find space for the story in its first 16 pages, assessing Bundy the Dog riding on a motorbike more newsworthy. The other News Limited tabloids, having given the Ashby allegations great prominence, similarly buried the court’s verdict.
This is straight media bias. It is also unprofessional. Coalition frontbenchers had been caught lying about the Ashby case. Manager of Opposition Business, Christopher Pyne, had lied about his meetings with Ashby. He at first claimed he might have passed the time of day with him and other Slipper staffers, when in truth he’d met at length and later asked for contact details – also initially denied until later exposed.
Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, told anyone who claimed he knew of the Ashby complaint in advance to “go to hell”. Yet his office told the media that over Easter, when the complaint was being formulated, he’d met Clive Palmer at Coolum alone. But Mr Palmer revealed that was a lie – Mal Brough was there too. Hockey’s meeting with Brough might have been perfectly innocent but, if so, why lie about it?
Mr Abbott, too, has serious questions to answer. For at least the first week after the story broke in The Daily Telegraph, Abbott – and also Pyne – said they had “no specific knowledge” of the Ashby allegations against Slipper. On the day the story broke, Abbott held a doorstop interview at which he said: “I think everyone in the Parliament was aware of rumours about the Speaker …” But when subsequently asked at another doorstop what “no specific knowledge” meant, Abbott terminated the interviews and walked away. Later he changed his story, telling the ABC’s AM Program on 9 May 2012 “The first I knew of all these things was when I read the newspapers on the Saturday morning.” Despite changing his story, Abbott has never been properly challenged about his prior knowledge of the Ashby complaint.
Just what prior knowledge did Abbott have? On 30 November 2011, just after Slipper had become Speaker, Abbott suggested to Tony Jones on Lateline “Let’s see how things pan out. Who knows what’s going to happen in the first half of next year.” How prophetic. The court found that on 10 October 2011, Slipper and Ashby exchanged text messages in which each referred to Brough in terms of vulgar and sexualised abuse. The day after Abbott’s Lateline prophecy, Slipper offered Ashby a job, and 22 days later Ashby began working for Slipper. By 2 February 2012 Ashby had begun working on his sexual harassment claim against Slipper.
All these might well be a series of coincidences. But they have proved to be of no interest to the media.
Abbott’s and Pyne’s evasiveness in refusing to elaborate on their shared formulation of having “no specific knowledge” of the Ashby complaint is indicative of a successful Coalition media strategy.
That strategy is to create ample room for ambiguity and then be unavailable to the Canberra Press Gallery until the issue blows over. Pyne issued only written statements and was unavailable for several days. Abbott walked away from doorstops when questioning turned to the meaning of “no specific knowledge”.
Deputy Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop, has successfully used this tactic too. At the height of her parliamentary attack accusing the Australian Prime Minister of criminality, Ms Bishop held two media conferences on 27 November 2012. Asked how many times she had discussions with self-confessed fraudster Ralph Blewitt, Ms Bishop replied it had been only once, in a face-to-face meeting on Friday 23 November in Melbourne. Ms Bishop said she had received a phone call from former radio presenter Mike Smith, who’d happened to be at a café with Blewitt. As Ms Bishop happened to be not only in the same city but in the vicinity of the cafe in a Comcar, she dropped in for a cup of coffee. It seems 2012 has been the year of Coalition coincidences.
When it emerged that Ms Bishop had, in fact, had a prior telephone conversation with Blewitt on Wednesday 21 November, she issued a written statement conceding she may have spoken to him but wasn’t sure as it had only been for a few seconds and the line had dropped out. Blewitt subsequently claimed he’d spoken to Bishop for about three or four minutes.
Bishop immediately went to ground, cancelling her attendance at an Abbott book launch and at a National Press Club luncheon address by the Prime Minister of PNG. Ms Bishop remained unavailable for Press Gallery interviews, consenting only to friendly interviews with Alan Jones and Paul Henry where the subject of the number of conversations with Blewitt conveniently was not raised.
It was not until 14 December – 17 days after her Canberra press conferences – that Ms Bishop reappeared for a long-form interview on the AWU matter. I had been tweeting all that time that Ms Bishop was avoiding media scrutiny of the discrepancy in her account of discussions with Blewitt, even offering to donate $1,000 to Lifeline if she reappeared. On Friday 14 December Ms Bishop appeared on Sky to be interviewed by David Lipson. The discrepancy was not raised.
Then, on Saturday 15 December, Ms Bishop appeared on ABC24 with Latika Bourke. Not only was the discrepancy relating to Blewitt not raised, the Ashby-Brough-LNP matter was completely ignored.
Several conclusions reasonably emerge from these two examples. First, matters relating to events almost 20 years ago are adjudged by several media outlets as being more newsworthy than those relating to the year 2012.
Second, despite the Prime Minister holding two full media conferences, answering questions in Parliament and giving the Opposition Leader ample time under parliamentary privilege to set out his case for why the Prime Minister of Australia was a criminal, media outlets persist with their claim that the issue is unresolved and the Prime Minister still has questions to answer.
Third, despite a scathing court judgement that the Ashby complaint was designed to benefit LNP candidate Brough and change the balance in the House of Representatives (an hence, the Government of Australia), the News Limited tabloids and the Saturday edition of ABC24 do not consider this to be newsworthy.
Fourth, the Coalition tactic of going to ground when a Shadow Minister lies to the media, or is at best evasive, is very effective.
None of this has the subtlety of the early 1970s. If editors consider a news story doesn’t accord with their editorial position they simply don’t run it. And if journalists want to protect favoured politicians from answering questions about their untruthfulness, they simply don’t ask them.
In making these observations, I am not asserting there is a general bias in the media. Some editors and a few journalists are blatantly biased. That has always been the case. But the real problem is the abandonment of professional standards to give effect to that bias. All subtlety is lost.
Blah blah blah have another glass of your mistress eye contacts you knob. How can we believe a word you say when you were knee deep into your mistress, who now happens to be a criminal PM?
You Emmerson lack credibility are a Union stooge and boy is it in your interest to look after the tart you were shagging. You have been well and truly looked after haven't you? I wonder what the ex thinks of you?
Posted by: Kenny | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 07:55 PM
Now, THERE'S a man with a mote the size of a Californian Redwood in his eye.
Yes, there is extraordinary media bias by the taxpayer funded ABC which is prevented by its own Charter from doing so. News Corp and Fairfax are free to editorialise as they please - it's called a free market mechanism, something you'd think someone with a Doctorate in Economics might have a basic understanding of.
Yes, there is extraordinary spin out of Canberra - most of it coming from PM&C courtesy of McTernan's influence, though the "talking points" the Caucus stooges are given daily certainly add to the dosage.
For a man whose career will be remembered solely for acting like an imbecile on the lawn outside Parliament house, bouncing up and down like my pet cockatoo, and also for cheating on his wife and family to court Julia Gillard, I have to say Dr Craig either has a lot of chutzpah or his PhD belies a constitutional dim-ness.
Posted by: Rumpole | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:10 PM
Well Mr Whyalla Whyalla when did Miss contact lenses answer any of the questions in parliament in full regarding her involvement in the AWU scam. To my recollection not one has been answered satisfactorily, but only with mud and abuse. Furthermore what childish examples you chose for your article to sustain your argument, I suppose its a bit like the acting Prime Minister letting slip right on christmas that there will be no surplus now there is a example for you Mr Emerson.
Posted by: serenity 747 | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:12 PM
AUSTRALIAN STORY 2006 CAROLYN JONES
JULIA GILLARD: My relationship with Craig Emerson was a very important one to me. Being involved with a colleague has got its down side in the sense that drawing the line between what's work and what's not work becomes increasingly blurred. Craig and I were staying together at a hotel and I'd managed to forget to pack my contact lens holder. So I was just storing the contact lenses at the bottom of a glass, which wasn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to do. Er, so...in the bathroom, this glass with the contact lenses and a bit of solution in them. So, you know, during the course of the night, Craig gets up and thinking it's water, grabs the glass and drinks it. So I was wandering around National Conference blind for the next morning. I did have to give the Health Policy Report at the podium not basically able to see my notes or see the audience. Craig and I lived in different states in very demanding positions. And in the hurly-burly of the Labor world, ultimately it was just too difficult. I'm not involved in a relationship now, and you know, your, sort of, your life history rolls on.
They used to call this adultery.
Posted by: gabrianga | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:16 PM
TBH, freaky stuff? The more we learn about them the weirder it gets? Is someone holding a torch perhaps? What is this lifeline bizzo? Really bizarre, and not a smooth writing style either? Perhaps all the indulgences send them loopy? Can't sing? Can't write? Can't make a compelling argument? Can't keep his personal life in order? Can't even drink a glass of water without complications? It's all too much for me.
Posted by: meant4eachother | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:22 PM
"Second, despite the Prime Minister holding two full media conferences, answering questions in Parliament and giving the Opposition Leader ample time under parliamentary privilege to set out his case for why the Prime Minister of Australia was a criminal, media outlets persist with their claim that the issue is unresolved and the Prime Minister still has questions to answer."
Sorry, but the word "answering" is bridge too far when it comes to Gillard's response to questions. Emerson should have used the words "evaded" and "obfuscated", both of which are much more accurate descriptions of the gorgon's style.
Posted by: Phantom1945 | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:22 PM
"despite the Prime Minister holding two full media conferences"
Really? Two media call outs at relatively short notice at a place of her choosing with little or no opportunity for journalists to prepare properly?
And a stubborn reluctance, no a predetermined decision to NOT answer questions does not a full media conference. Not then, not now, not ever.
Posted by: Archer | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:23 PM
He states `This is straight media Bias`, then he states `I am not asserting there is a general bias in the media`.
I ask you , anyone at all , does he proof read his own statements on the record?
Why oh why , can they not see their own Hypocricy and contradictions?
What is it ?????
Why are they so very fixated on never solving anything(every policy he mentioned in that last week had been extensively exhausted and stagnated they are still unproductive ) when they are on such extreme wages with all that so called support?
They are not the Opposition , and media and the Liberals Team are not in an ongoing Court case from hell , are they?
Posted by: R we there yet | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:23 PM
Dr Emerson's thinly veiled biases became overt upon referring to "a dude named Gude". It was all downhill from there.
For evidence that Ms Gillard's word is not wholly to be relied upon, he should compare pp. 140, 141, 148, 185 and 188 of the Slater and Gordon conveyancing file with the following statement by former S & G partner Mr Nick Styant-Browne in his interview on the 7:30 Report on 22 November 2012:-
NICK STYANT-BROWNE: "What it shows is that Ms Gillard claimed at the interview in 1995 that the first she heard about the Slater & Gordon loan for the acquisition of the Kerr Street property was around August of that year. So, her claim is that the first she heard about the fact that the loan for the Kerr Street property was a Slater & Gordon mortgage was not until August of 1995, the transaction of course having taken place in March of 1993." (The interview referred to is the exit interview on 11 September 1995.)
Ms Gillard handled the truth carelessly about her knowledge of the mortgage loan, as she did also about the carbon tax in the lead up to the 2010 election.
I put it to Dr Emerson that Ms Gillard's word on any matter is suspect until proven otherwise. His speaking in her defence is hollow.
Investigative journalists worth their salt will properly continue their pursuit of the truth, Dr Emerson's bleats notwithstanding.
Posted by: Wyndham Dix | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:31 PM
Michael, I haven't read the article above. I have "The Australian" delivered to my home and NEVER read the regular articles by Emerson. I recoil in horror at the photo which always appears beside his articles.
Emerson and Bob Carr are the creepiest of men. They each make my skin crawl.
Posted by: Margie | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:34 PM
Here's a link ... it will satisfy Mr Emerson's desire for balance:
Posted by: Janice | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:42 PM
I suppose if he continues on with this apparent infatuation, a restraining order might be an option for her?
Posted by: Yolanda | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:45 PM
You are right Mr Emerson, the media is biased.
So lets let the Fraud Squad do their job, and in addition lets instigate a royal commission into corrupt union practices, and be done with the issues once and for all. Ms Gillard, Mr Wilson, Mr Shorten, Ms Roxon, and sundry other peoples can come and give their answers under oath to a judge or judges who are in the position of scrutinizing the published and unpublished documents, and then we can all stop wondering about what happened to something like one million dollars not to mention the WIDOWS AND ORPHANS money from Boulder which we know Ms Gillard helped Mr Wilson to take somewhere, goodness knows where.
That will be the best way for these allegedly maligned people to establish their alleged innocence.
The other thing they could do is sue the many people who have been going around allegedly smearing their allegedly good names, starting with Bob Kernohan who keeps inviting Ms Gillard to do just such a thing.
Cmon Craig, put your money where Julia's contact lenses went!
Posted by: Mel | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:46 PM
What a load of childish dribble Dr Emerson. We are not interested in your long winded statements about the good things the government has done. Many things that the government has done has turned to rubbish Dr Emerson, nbn, pink batts, asylum seekers, education revolution, fair (unfair) work Australia, carbon (dioxide) tax, the disability scheme etc. Plus trying to reduce free speech in this country by launching the stupid finklestein inquiry in the media. By the way "honorable" Dr Emerson your sad defending of Peter slipper and you're ex-lover Julia Gillard is so tiresome. There is no coalition party conspiracy against slipper and your ex-lover. Both of them are grubs. By the way Dr Emerson did your ex-lover reveal her dirty little secrets to you in the bedroom or having dinner?. Sad isn't it Dr Emerson when you had your long "holiday" away from your family to be with a known homewrecker in Julia Gillard. Did you ever think about your family when you were with Julia Gillard, Dr Emerson?.
Posted by: kurt | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:59 PM
The seventies wow,1970 the year that I recieved my doctorate..in hard knocks and life skills ....I managed a service station 3 workshop bays 2 mechanics 1 apprentice 1 lube operator.6/8 staff, i also worked 2 nights a week cleaning...I was 25 married and one on the way. I did not have to go to uni for six weeks to realise that the odd pages in the paper were best why do you think that they were called page 3 girls... ah the seventies ....by the way dr you said you had 2 points to make on media bias...you point 4. economics is to do with figures you cannot add
Posted by: oskar | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 08:59 PM
What a creep. He used to be on ABC 612 Brisbane every week in dialogue with Opposition MP George Brandis. He spoke over top of Brandis all the time. It was terrible to listen to and I had to switch off frequently. I still cannot read his articles or listen to him. Same with his ex girlfriend, can't listen to her either.
Posted by: Nellie | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:00 PM
This guy is a senior Minister yet finds time to compose an atrocious parody of a good Skyhooks song, and now finds a lot of time to compose a seemingly exhaustive study of the Opposition's political tactics.
How about working for us Craig?
You admit that at 18 you weren't equiped to judge the merits of a case. Nothing's changed, pal.
Posted by: Don't ask, don't tell | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:07 PM
Craig "Storm the Studio" Emerson is a coward. He has refused to go on "The Bolt Report" and never answers questions anyway. His diatribe has more holes than a leaky colander and his bias colours his vision.
If Emerson is the best defence for this government, then it is clear that this government is in trouble.
Posted by: Angry God of Townsville | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:14 PM
Don't mean to be picky Michael, but shouldn't that read 'Craig you should probably say you'D been having an adulterous affair with Julia' - not 'you'VE'.
Or we get a very different message!
Posted by: James In Footscray | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:18 PM
I don't know about you, but in my book any story concerning the amount of sexual relations that a person in the public life has would be somewhat worthy of reporting to the general public. If I were asked to describe a word for these actions, particularly with a married person, I would use the word "mole". However that's me, and others have decided that it doesn't rate a mention.
So getting to the point is that bias, or just an opinion??.
Posted by: Glenn | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:21 PM
Swallowing Julia's contact lenses has certainly given Emerson a very different outlook on the world and from the discomfort so obvious in his dancing style in "Whyalla' Whyalla", he still hasn't been able to dislodge the cause of his strange views!
Never mind Dr.Emerson, take heart. In my considerable experience, all things pass eventually!
Posted by: hillbilly33 | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:22 PM
Hey Craig, you goose.Who got the shaft and who got the gold mine
Think about how she's played all you guys. And you have a bit of paper that says your supposed to be intelligent , get real , she's miles ahead of you guys, but miles behind mainstream Australia .
Posted by: Tinaroo john | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:22 PM
The Ashby case gets all this close srutiny and the knifing of Krudd goes unnoticed. And now the ABC are trying to claim they were responsible for starting a story that turned into a snowball that swollowed up one Krudd. They just forgot they had howes taking credit for the deed before half the Labor MPs knew what was happening. Looked to me like the abc was creating a smoke screen for the unions. Why are reporter so keen to distort the facts?
Posted by: Nick gregor | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:24 PM
http://www.truth-now.net/case1.htm this is important if it is true would love to know
Posted by: kimball | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:32 PM
Craig Emersen has PhD? How on earth did he manage that? His writing style and grammar are terrible.
I was pursuing my own Economics degree at Melbourne University during that same period. Fortunately we were not offered the same kind if rubbish as the course known as government. It was an intense time. The raid on ASIO was one of the many low lights of that period. ASIO was busy because of the number of ALP government Minister who were Marxists including Dr Jim Cairns. At least one was involved with a Soviet spy.
Posted by: maggie1954 | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:34 PM
They could compare labor real news regarding the same socialist ``vision`` and see for themselves where they are taking the Nation.
Sydney morning herald 1931 eg Mon june 22nd .Not a single thing has changed other than having the internet.
Mayhem, poverty, discourse disparity, labor is not working for the people.Unions standover bullies debt and home evictions , cheapness poor standards.
Hell bent for leather dysfunction, rorts.Questionable voting counting, trust diminishing.
It does not work for the majorities best safest interest.
Not rocket science, History.Fact.
Sat april 1st 1932 SMH same still chaos.
Posted by: R we there yet | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:41 PM
Skyhooks - less my beloved Shirley :( - should have sued - I think? Cos this guy certainly is shockin us right out of our ----- b r a i n s -----
Posted by: BlueAnne | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:46 PM
An adulterer defending a courtesan while condemning a homosexual for denouncing a misogynist.
I am convinced that doctorates are now issued for twisted logic and/or immorality.
Posted by: John Greybeard | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:47 PM
Yer man next time you're havin a smooch ask her where the ORPHANS AND WIDOWS MONEY is? Ta 4 that!
Posted by: looselips | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 09:56 PM
i want some of the shit this idiot is smoking
seems like hallicination heaven
not content after shagging the witch now he's cooking up stories
waaaay to go maaaaan
next you'll say she's not a liiaaarrrrr
Posted by: Ed | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:02 PM
In parliament i can just see hands up who has slept with the most people in the chamber, wonder who would win we used to have a name fore people like that if you all remember and it is not very attractive i might add, yet the strut around like they are clever. Sorry not very revalent but just thinking aloud.
Posted by: kimball | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:08 PM
Hey Hillbilly. So glad you're back. Happy new year. You are so funny Thanx for the laugh. These days we need our sense of humour in good working order. We missed tou
Posted by: Jenstar | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:19 PM
So we are to accept that Gillard is innocent of any wrongdoing on the say-so of a close fellow MP, an adulterer with whom she was having an affair at one time.
Emerson has zero credibility and objectivity, and I wouldn't accept the word of someone who has cheated on his wife. If he's willing to deceive his wife I believe he wouldn't have any qualms about doing the same to the public.
Posted by: Not on the Left | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:21 PM
Seems once again the old saying is true when the dick gets in the way the brain flies out the window. certainly he didn't gain any insight from his late night drink. It does demonstrate tho' if you have one world view it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of you, your opinion will stay the same. THE FACTS WILL BE TWISTED TO SUIT THE MIND SET
Posted by: min | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:34 PM
I must concede to get loyalty like this even from an idiot like emerson she must be bloody good in (redacted, I am currently in the business centre of a prominent Melbourne hotel Kevin and when I read the one syllable 3 letter word that I've just redacted I exclaimed involuntarily and my hand flew to my mouth, as my act of random kindness for the day I've spared the rest of you from the experience. if you have the hiccups and you'd like a cure I could recommend Kevin's original note. Tempat tidor).
God the people, communist or not, who voted for this fool must be hiding under the bed in shame!
Posted by: Kevin Freer | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:38 PM
Dear me, Craig... Didn't anyone ever tell you that sometimes it's just better to keep your mouth shut and keep 'em guessing, than open it and remove all doubt?
After reading through that rather long-winded peice of spin-team propaganda, the argument basically boils down to the media is only biased when not reporting favorably on the government. We weren't exposed to these petulent opinion peices when editors were too scared to do anything other than fire anyone who broached the AWU story. Bugger Julia's misogyny speech, I want to hear the white hot, incandescent with rage one delivered to News Ltd. Must have been good to result in a few imprompteau and improper sackings.
The problem for this government is two fold. First, the AWU-WRA is a gift that just keeps on giving, in terms of new information coming to light. Even now, it can't ever be ruled out that there are people who have first hand knowledge of circumstances or events connnected to the scandal who won't at some point break their silence. No matter how many times Julia handwaives it as "being extensively dealt with on the public record", every new peice of information poses a valid question to be answered, simply because it was not dealt with on that public record she refers to.
The second problem the government faces is that media outlets have started to regain their confidence. They have weathered the storm and are recovering from their crisis earlier in the year, paticularly the layoffs and other woes of Fairfax. Also the threat of an enquiry along the lines of the UK's Leveson Enquiry no longer is no longer such a big stick since it has been exposed as a blatent attempt by the government to control what the media reports about it. So they will report on things that are in the public interest, even if it doesn't please the government. After all, their own polling shows that a change of government is quite likely next year, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Pity that there are still pundits in the press gallery and public-funded media who see themselves having a vested interest in showing their partisan support for the government.
Posted by: Zeitgeist | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:41 PM
James of Footscray:
I noticed the same thing but, considering I have thought that Tim and Julia have the 'relationship' of the two lead characters in the movie 'Wedding Date', perhaps Michael has not made a typo at all. We will have to see whether Michael alters his wording.
Posted by: A Tangled Webb | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:41 PM
Craig, you cohabit with certain other people and you get a bad reputation. Wake up man.
Posted by: JennyF | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:44 PM
Slipper, Ashby, Thomson, Wilson, Blewitt, Gillard, Union Funds for Widows and Children gone, funds paid by taxpayers for workplace reform diverted, a house bought, renovations, PofA and misleading a WA Commissioner on creating an entity to syphon funds and Abbott has questions to answer?
I cannot wait until an election comes round and we make our judgement on this wayward Government and that Media Emerson is talking about is in the pocket of the Prime Minister.
Did Emerson get permission from Letika Burke?
Posted by: Maggie Qld | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:48 PM
I keep going on about the mummy's finding out that she is a husband stealer. Heaven's above if it got out about her recent other type of affair, how would that gossip go over with the yummy mummy's at playgroup? I have tried to post here on Michael's blog before and it has been cut (sorry for being so bold Michael, I understand if this gets cut too).
Do people know about the scandal? It makes her affairs with married men Gordon, Wilson, Emerson and O'Connor look tame. And to think that she voted against Gay Marriage.
Posted by: BBPD | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:49 PM
This dill could not possibly be Australian!
Posted by: philj | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:52 PM
Craig Emerson has no credibility whatsoever. Why waste space even recycling this garbage?
Posted by: Wayne Perry | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 10:54 PM
Is there anybody in the labor party Gillard has not shagged - the married ones that is????? God, were all those men blind and stupid. Obviously we know the answer - just remember the idiot Emerson's sing-along.
Posted by: Maria | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:01 PM
OMG IT IS ALL SO INCESTUOUS. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THEY REALLY HAVE AFFECTION FOR EACH OTHER.
I RATHER THINK IT IS JUST ABOUT NETWORKING AND SEX.
SHORTEN SAID HIS FORMER WIFE DEBBIE BEAL "WAS AN ENDLESSLY SUPPORTIVE WIFE" YET HE TOLD HER AT A FOOTBALL MATCH "I NO LONGER WISH TO BE MARRIED"
DEBBIE BEALE OPENED MANY DOOR'S FOR SHORTEN,
IT IS NO WONDER WHEN ASKED TO COMMENT ABOUT THE BREAKUP SHE REPLIED "DON'T TEMPT ME"
SHE ALSO COMMENTED, "ALTHOUGH SHORTEN AND BRYCE WERE EXPECTING A CHILD TOGETHER, THEY WERE STILL MARRIED TO THEIR PARTNER'S.
MAYBE I AM OLD FASHIONED , BUT I THINK A I WANNA BE PM SHOULD HAVE BETTER MORAL'S.
AS FOR GILLARD TELLING THE WORLD HER MARRIED LOVER HAD SWALLOWED HER CONTACT LENS, UNBELIEVABLE.
Posted by: CHAFF BAGG | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:05 PM
Glad to see your comments.
Happy new year, kind regards, Karen
Posted by: BBPD | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:06 PM
Awwww Cwaigy waigy, so not quite all of the Editors or News papers are 100% on your side, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!!!!
Oh life is so unfair.
Posted by: Ken | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:25 PM
MAYBE YOU TWO CAN GET TOGETHER AGAIN,LIKE AFTER THE ELECTION.
SHAM LOVER TIMMY WILL HAVE WELL AND TRULY REACHED HIS USE BY DATE.
WITH JOOLYA'S FABULOUS PENSION YOU TWO COULD SAIL AWAY TO PARADISE HOPEFULLY FOREVER.
Posted by: CHAFF BAGG | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:33 PM
So Mr "Horror Show" Emerson when you refer to “Some editors and a few journalists are blatantly biased.” are you referring to Oakes, Grattan, Harcher, Coorey and just about every journalist on the Fairfax payroll whose primary interest is to be the Gillard cheer squad!
If, as you say ” That has always been the case.” perhaps this is why The Age and SMH are dying mastheads.
Then in your final statement, the punch line, you state “But the real problem is the abandonment of professional standards to give effect to that bias. All subtlety is lost.” I guess this is referring to the loss subtlety and one-side argument for climate change, or whatever term the Labor Government chooses to introduce re;clean energy, dirty power etc; and reference to those that challenge the idea as climate skeptics or deniers
Posted by: Maurice | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:34 PM
Michael, How about demanding a right of reply as he is criticising you and your industry!!! Emerson needs to be put in his place. He is subtly laying grounds to bring in these new media laws by complaining about this "selective" reporting.
As the laymen, we're lucky if we get a couple of lines printed in the Letters to the Editor, but these pollies can have their page long opinions published with all their spin and no questions asked. I thought we lived in an egalitarian society where all people are equal but when it comes to newspapers and blog sites, some people are more equal than others in getting their opinions published.
At least we have a voice with you; thank God.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:39 PM
You might think Emmo and Albo are friends of Gillard because they sound convincing, but don't let the 'keeping up appearances' of politics bother you. Besides, loathe to bag Emmo; like his music lol.
However, since he brought up Ashby case, take a look at this report....
The green emergency dockets from the cabbie's docket book Sliper provided are in sequence. As someone who has been cabbie for 8 years, i can tell you there's more chance of being hit by a meteor, than Slipper being the ONLY person who paid using old green docket method, especially when Slipper says the limo cabbie in question didn't have electronic eftpos. So anyone not paying cash could only pay via the green dockets according to Slipper's tale. Otherwise how is the driver going to make any sort of living at all in this day and age?
The emergency dockets take a variety of credit cards (not debit cards) & can do contract jobs for war veterans via Dept of Vet. Affairs. Slipper is a fraudulent liar & Albo might have been doing his best to defend him, but he would know privately that he had to sell a pup but try to make out it's pork, yet know full well the voters saw exactly what was cooking regarding Slipper's little escapades.
Another thing, Slipper pointed in his dodgy texts to this Vex news article regarding Sophie Mirabella...
Slipper's anti-Mirabella text (Oct 12 2011) was a day after Mirabella was 'named' and removed from the house for defying Slipper...
So Slipper deserved to be removed as Speaker because he wasn't independent minded. Mirabella is no angel either, but still....
Point of all this is, if Emmo or others in the govt point to the Ashby ruling time and again, they perhaps should look at their own backyard regarding their undying support of Slipper.
Posted by: Jollybagman | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:42 PM
The Courier Mail has some other gems though...
1. "Mr Thomson's parliamentary colleague and close friend Craig Emerson, the Federal Trade Minister, yesterday warned Opposition MPs to "back off"."
Wonder how this has panned out for Luwig?
2. "ONE of the most powerful men in Australian politics has used union funds to pay for the cost of a private legal dispute. National Australian Workers Union boss Bill Ludwig personally signed two AWU cheques worth almost $45,000 combined for legal expenses relating to his position as a director of Racing Queensland Limited."
And based on years of interaction and personal knowledge, Big Bill Ludwig offers a scathing character assesment of Emerson.
"In February 2011, Ludwig branded Emerson a ''dishonourable rat'' after the minister rebuked Howes for criticising mining giant Rio Tinto. Howes had likened Rio's board to ''a bunch of monkeys'' and accused the company of ''sucking the blood of its blue-collar workers''.
...Big Bill replied, ''Let me tell you the only reason he (Emerson) is not on the front bench is because he's f---ing hopeless''.
''The only reason he's got a seat, the safest Labor seat in Queensland,'' Ludwig continued, ''is because we supported him on the recommendation of Bob Hawke, and since then he hasn't lived up to that promise. He has never been a team player, never done his bit for anyone except his own ambition to be prime minister.''...."
Given his adultery with Gillard, choice of close friends like Thomson, bad singing and dancing, do we really want this snearing grub Emerson representing Austrlia as Trade Minister?
I wonder what other skeletons might be lurking in Emerson's closet? Hmmm
Posted by: Gary | Sunday, 30 December 2012 at 11:57 PM
Sorry Michael , I just could not read the text of Emo's opinion ,however , I do appreciate the time and effort others took to read it and I believe their comments to be honest, coherent and interesting
Posted by: Lola | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 12:06 AM
I cannot believe that a Labour MP could even dream of complaining of media bias, when the bias has been so blatantly left leaning from all but a few MSM journalists. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! To me, it appears that they are sycophantic and/or just too lazy to do their job properly.
And it's the same old BS being spun as usual - if they say that there has been no wrongdoing established against JG in the AWU scandal often enough then perhaps some people will begin to believe it. Still doesn't make it true.
Plus, to say that JG has answered every question put to her in parliament over the scandal is IMHO an outright lie. I'd like to have him show me just one occasion where she actually answered a question on it in parliament. Again, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
Posted by: newbposter | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 01:05 AM
I don't know what is worse, his singing, his dancing, his writing or his choice of booty call.
Posted by: old44 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 01:19 AM
Good old Labor must have done a lot of research to find such a compatible mob of childish incompetent clowns to form a party they hoped to rule Australia with.
Surely Australia is seeing through this lot.
If not , then the only conclusion is Labor would not have had to do a lot of research at all.
Posted by: barry | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 05:51 AM
oskar makes some excellent points about the school of hard knocks around 1970. I agree that he had the better education in life experiences.
Last night I made my comment just about when it was lights out!!
I have more to say about that same period because at that time the newspapers including the Age and the Australian were not as biased as they are now. I used to read all of them when I was in my final years at school and then at university.
What I should have pointed out is that when doing my degree we did in fact learn about that thing called Stagflation during the Economics course. This was at a time when stagflation was just starting to have an impact, and we were clearly taught that the Keynesian solutions were no longer working and that other solutions were required.
Just after this time Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister and he introduced some very unpopular measures.... and they worked but it took a long time before there was a turnaround. It is because the inflation was cost-push i.e. it was fuelled by constant wage increases that such measures as a freeze on wages and prizes were a necessary part of the solution.
What I noted in Emerson's screed is that his level of writing was excruciatingly bad. He does not write in a style that suggests he has a PhD, but instead he writes at the level of a 9th grader (and some of those in that year of school would write a lot better than Emerson).
What really stood out to me was his mention of some lecturer who was supposed to be about gay rights and gay marriage.... but the thing is that back in the 1970s there was no push on either subject, especially gay marriage. You would think that Emerson could at least get that correct when writing an article!!
Posted by: Maggie1954 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 06:32 AM
After reading this rather silly post by Emerson should really have been singing the Scarecrow song from the Wizard of Oz
Posted by: Bill Tamworth | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 06:34 AM
Perhaps contact lenses should carry a health warning?
"Accidental swallowing of this product could distort your vision."
Posted by: Nonna | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 06:42 AM
'.... even offering to donate $1,000 to Lifeline if she reappeared'.
This excuse for a man is nothing but scum. He should refrain from any association, whether donation or otherwise, from Lifeline. What's the bet that Lifeline didn't get his $1,000. Can anyone check?
Posted by: Mike | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 07:08 AM
Emerson has all the credibility of Milli Vanilli teaching singing at the Conservatorium of Music. Around here, he's called a dropkick.
It's amusing to see him trying to create sticky mud out of how long Bishop spoke to Ralph Blewitt, like speaking to people is a crime.
All the best for the New Year to you and your bloggers Michael.
We all know that 2013 will be a good year because it has an election in it. Cheers all.
Posted by: Jacket | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 07:09 AM
Gillard and Hawke follow Turnbull to Woodford – a place for music and blues, to funk, to jazz, country & western, comedy and street theatre. There are 37 stages at Woodford with the musios giving their all. So why politics now to spoil the occasion? And of all people Turnbull and Gillard – what were they (the organisers) thinking? Two really dreary people!
“and the one heckler I did see was howled down” – now she was not a heckler but a brave woman to stand up and ask “her” about “Illegal Immigrants” – the response was from Hawke who spat into his microphone “she didn’t come here to listen to you” (referring to the questioner) – well dearie, if “she” didn’t come to the Woodford Festival to listen to the people then why was “she” there at all?
Of course the media only showed what they wanted us to see as usual. I understand there were other questions (about CSG – which is a hot potato in Queensland) put that “she” refused to take! Guess if anyone asked about the AWU WRA they would have been shrieked at no less! – and arrested!
So Gillard flew from Adelaide or Canberra, picked up ol’ Bob, and Tim along the way, landed at Bris.- hopped into a limo to Woodford, not to listen to the people at a festival where that is what people do – listen to others! AND at what cost to the taxpayer?
The real reason for “her” visit was to announce that the NDIS would be a priority in the coming year plus changes to education – all very luvvie dovey – BUT where is the money Honey?
Jules before you run headlong into 2013, what about the dirty washing? – you have to clear up the scandals surrounding you first and show Australians that you are not a crook? How about it?
Posted by: dialabull | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 07:31 AM
Isn't an endless repetitious droning supposed to be good for yoga and transcendental meditation?
Strange that I don't feel centred....
Posted by: The Old and Unimproved Dave | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 07:42 AM
How truly pathetic. For years and years, Fairfax and the ABC ardently push the Labor/left agenda in a most irresponsible way, without stopping to be self-reflective. So, I think Emerson, who holds a doctorate, shoulld worry more about keeping his seat than about the media, the AWU and Peter Slipper scandals. Surely he must have more umportant things to do, given that he has local members to look after. So, to repeat myself, he is pathetic and trite.
Posted by: Monty of Brisbane | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 07:46 AM
Whatever CE does, whether it's dan-sin, sin-gin, tor-kin, and now, rye-tin, proves that he is just a Dick Wit(less) of the lowest order. Obviously, he sees everything through 'her' contact lens that he swallowed, probably so he could see things differently as he was a married man, with kids, while he was twisting away with 'her'.
Posted by: Allan Cox | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:01 AM
The whole truth in this story will only come out through a full enquiry, but until then, how good would it be if Bob was to be interviewed on main stream media so the masses could hear and see his conviction regarding the telling comments he has written and posted in this Courier Mail editorial. How powerful would it be to witness a member of the public throwing the gauntlet down to the might of the Prime Minister and her unlimited resources - effectively saying that if the PM takes offence to his allegations then take him to court and better still any rebuttal she has to his allegations should be made public outside Parliamentary privilege.
Posted by: Tony B | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:14 AM
Hard to comment , still laughing at the headline...lol....that's a cracker.
Posted by: barry | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:18 AM
@bbpd. I hear tummy has a very interesting daughter
Posted by: Jenstar | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:25 AM
I think Craig has gone a little further than most to make sure his photo takes are always looking young and refreshed.
Posted by: Jay | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:34 AM
Emmo's finally done something of use. Dr. Snooze, one paragraph will send you off for the night, insomniacs 2-3 will do. See your real Doctor (the one who actually knows what they are doing) if symptoms persist. Do not under any circumstances read the whole paper. You may never come out of the urge to vote Liarbor.
Posted by: johninoxley | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:36 AM
Now that I have woken up,"As an 18 year old, I wasnt equiped to make to make a judgement on the merits of the case". What makes you think you have any judgement after getting into bed with the Slapper.
Posted by: johninoxley | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 08:43 AM
This from the same Emmerson who attacks Abbott regarding the carbon tax and whyalla yet all Abbott did was repeat what a UNION leader had stated. Perhaps Emmerson himself needs to research with a NON biased atitude BEFORE he opens his mouth. As far as comparisons between Gillard/awy/slush fund and the Slipper affair. Labor/Gillard and co " BOUGHT" Slippers vote by giving him the speakership and sacking a decent speaker. Secondly slippers texts etc and history were already in the public domain, Gillard and co BOUGHT slipper the speakers position for POLITICAL reasons and to stay in power.By Emmersons twisted logic surely that is as corrupt a reason as his confected conspiracy attacks ??
Finally he really needs to actually name when and where Ms Gillard actually ANSWERED ANY slush fund questions , when or where did she openly and honestly answer any ?? The lies the deceit and spin are all outweighed substantially by FACTS, she admitted acting for her BOYFRIEND ( a married man with a family) to open an account, she misled the incorporation body as the account was NOT what she stated it to be, it was NOT an AWU account,they knew NOTHING about it, she acted for her BOYFRIEND when purchasing a house using fraudulantly gained monies and missusing her companies processes. She was SACKED for these actions. She admits to the slush fund but defends it as "Everyone did it and I did nothing wrong". This from the PM ?? can you imagine the prison sentence if a business ceo did such a thing ??
Emmerson is deceitful,deluded and deranged.
His perversion of events and his spiteful misleading statements are a good reason as to why we do NOT allow Labor to change the media rules.How far does corruption go within Labor and the Unions ?? we may never know, but what we do know is tha the Unions RUN the Labor party.I say no more
Posted by: Paulh | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:01 AM
ABC news 24 has been listing the news and political highlights of the year this morning, the AWU Gillard scandal never got a mention, surprise surprise! Pathetic journalism as usual, seems to be the Australian way these days.
Posted by: peter888 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:04 AM
BBPD - "Do people know about the scandal? It makes her affairs with 1234 look tame."
Sorry BBPD I'm not going to let that slide.
Post in hypotheticals? Tell us a little story (FICTION OF COURSE!). Got anything to do with something Ralph may have said?
Good friends are hard to come by?
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:18 AM
He has plenty to say with his opinion pieces in the newspapers, but ask him a question directly and you will get a 1 line quote from Hansard with the bulk of the Hansard left out sothat he thinks you are to stupid to check his answer, and when you take him to task about his answer you get absolute silence, this bloke is ALP PM material.
Posted by: Rankin Voter | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:18 AM
You know what they say about a woman scorned .............
Or am I confused .............
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:21 AM
Jenstar, but she doesn't live with them does she? Has she? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:24 AM
How old is she?
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:25 AM
Its so difficult to realise these people are running this country....and hanging on at all costs,....at least their Rantings make good fodder for the election
Posted by: Andrewk | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:26 AM
All my mates are gettin locked up
Yee ee esss their all gettin nicked
Their all spending time in the big house
Geee ee eeez I'm feelin bloody sick
Posted by: Pete | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:31 AM
Shame Channel 9 ran out of money eh?
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:34 AM
Poor poor Craig. Since he refused to toe the faction line in the Latham - Beazley stoush, he has been on the outer with Bill Ludwig's AWU Right faction. Nine years on and Emerson's vote still isn't acknowledged within the AWU and invariably ends up in the waste bin.
Posted by: Theoldcoyote | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:36 AM
It looks like poor old craigy is going to have to add to his list of gripes. I woke up this morning to an article that dares criticise swanny boy. I think it will be interesting to see how craig spins it and justifies swan's interference and commentary on the US economy (which is absolute gall of the highest order).
btw I loved the fact that it was reported in such a way. Shows that there are some free thinkers left in MSM, and it gives me hope.
Swan's grand GOP slam deserves a hit
Swan's foray into US domestic politics not only marks a desperate attempt to blame US politicians for his own failure to deliver a budget surplus in Australia. It also displays the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party and much of the media.
Posted by: newbposter | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:48 AM
It has long been obvious to most, and will be to the Labor Party and Press Gallery soon as well, that no virus or bacillus that ever lived is as contagious and pernicious a vector of death to political careers as one Julia E. Gillard.
Posted by: The Old and Unimproved Dave | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:54 AM
Emmerson is pathetic as a trade minister. Things are tough on the land at the moment, with the carbon tax pushing up costs in ways most people don't realise and loss of asian export markets because the government is asleep at the wheel. We lost half the Indonesian beef market because of Gillard and now we are being squeezed out of the Korean market because they have a free trade agreement with America and we don't. When Emmerson isn't defending his old squeeze he's advocating for Chinese agricultural interests. His vision for Australian agriculture is for our farms to be owned by Asian and Middle Eastern interests, staffed by their own nationals under work visas and exporting directly back to their own countries. Aussies might pick up a few crumbs around the edges. We desperately need an election.
Posted by: aussie farmer | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:54 AM
Oh yes! We talked about policy in Question time because we are noble. It's called a Dorothy Dixer, a prepared question given to a dismal low performing back bencher to stumble as he/she reads it like a kid reading an answer from a hastily prepared homework book in high school.
Meanwhile the very totally evil Abbott with his equally evil cohorts, that awful harpy J. Bishop continually dishing dirt to the gracious lady Gillard re her innocent little incursions to a 17 year old flirtation with danger in her naivete and innocence...
And of course we do have the proven misogyny of that dastardly Mr. Rabbit -
Okay Emerson. Julia's list works well. Why don't you start a little society called Craig's List. You can enlist the saints such as Craig Thompson, Slipper, you know, all the regular blokes so they can stick together like the sheilas do. Bill (I'll say whatever it was she said)Shorten might help you. Patron can be the Silver Bodgie who attends any festival to be adored and has little affairs with blondes who write books about him while his faithful wife rots away in an institution... and let's face it... you've also indulged in such a little affair -
And come to think of it... you must have known the good Union members who are mentioned in your poor excuse for an excuse.
You make me sick Emerson. I hope that there's some 'ow's yer mother kharma at the end of your rainbow... there might be some in Whyalla?
Posted by: pennyoz. | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:56 AM
13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 09:18 AM
I am not a poet, and I knowit, but here goes:
There once was a man named Short;
Whose first wife came from a family of Tort;
The jilted first wife schemed a Thought;
How can I bring my husband's wondering to Nought?
To take a PM as your lover is of danger and surely fraught;
But the power, the prestige, the excitement, it cannot be bought;
As yet they have not been caught;
But I wonder how long before the story is caught??
So I reckon I should stick to my day job, but hopefully 13 you get the drift?
Posted by: BBPD | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:12 AM
@ dialabull 7:31AM. You reminded me of Hawke calling an elderly gentleman a "silly old buggar" which lost him a lot of support.
It beats me how Gillard can front up to the public as if she has "done nothing wrong". More front than Myers.
Posted by: Maggie Qld | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:24 AM
That's a RIPPER short poem BBPD. OMG.
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:28 AM
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:29 AM
Quite so. Up front and center should be the disclaimer that the PM is Emerson ex. And as he's rabbiting on about journalistic bias and deception by others that's quite a bias to be deceptive about. What a hypocrite you are Craig.
...JULIA Gillard has called for a “renewed national spirit of unity...
What do you make of this? Is Gillard asking the nation to embrace the liars and thieves in the ALP and union movement do you think? Next she'll be claiming Wilson, Blewit, Thommo, Williamson, Slipper and herself are just like Ned Kelly and should be getting pats on the back for their inventive forms of thievery.
Posted by: Michelle | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:30 AM
That "dude named Gude" (If that's the best you can do as a poet. Dr Emerson, don't give up your day job) gave an interview to the Press, in which he said he had been briefed on the whole affair by a senior member of the Labor Party before making those claims............Got the clipping somewhere.
Posted by: Zulu Kilo Two Alpha | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:36 AM
So Hawkey doesn't think constituents should be expecting answers from their Prime Minister about her failed asylum seeker policy which has resulted in 1000 or so drownings?
Well she will get an answer come election time, as wheeling out Hawke on what I suspect is the as yet anannouced election eve can only be considered the kiss of death (just ask Anna Bligh and Chrissy Keneally).
Methinks with KRudd apparently OS lecturing the Chinese on their relationship with the Japs the knives are being sharpened down in Victoria.
Julia Gillard is now so reviled nationwide that axing her and calling a snap election might be the only way for the Fabians to get a bounce in the polls, from a grateful electorate. The question is will the bounce get them over the high jump?
Michael while you are down in Victoria how about sussing out some of the leaking internal ALP polling? From the backbenchers.
Posted by: Mel | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 10:36 AM
And just think, if one of her ex lovers hadn't of written all that blah de blah, we would never have glimpsed some fine poetry? Thankyou for that.
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 11:01 AM
This is for you Craig
Posted by: Nonna2 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 11:13 AM
Michael I love the new title you have given Emo
It is very fitting-- remains the best I've seen so far unless someone can come up with a pithy title containing the word "stiff"because that chap would be the stiffest "dancer" I've ever had to torture my eyeballs with co for a few seconds of lost wasted time!
Hm, it could also contain "lemming" or similar ,as he is 110% a party line follower!
Posted by: Jazza | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 11:18 AM
GET YOUR DRIFT.
SHORTEN AND HOWES WILL LOSE THEIR APPEAL FOR THE OPPOSITE SEX, ONCE IT BECOMES APPARENT THEY WILL NOT GAIN THE TOP JOB.
HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE BILL L WILL HAND SHORTEN THE SHARPEST ALP KNIFE TO REMOVE GILLARD.
Posted by: CHAFF BAGG | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 11:28 AM
Are we talking dementia now?
Posted by: 13 | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 11:42 AM
@Bill Tamworth | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 06:34 AM
He doesn't need a brain, he was born with one it is just nobody taught him to use it.
But the man has a doctorate.
A PhD is a specialist who learns more and more about less and less until eventually she/he knows everything about nothing.
On the other hand (economist's term), the Prime Minister is a generalist. A Generalist knows less and less about more and more until eventually she/he knows nothing about everything.
Happy New Election Year.
Posted by: John Greybeard | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 12:01 PM
Usually when I see Emerson's name i turn the page.
Here is a pathetic case of a nonentity wanting to be noticed.
I read the article as a courtesy to you Michael, as you went to the trouble to put it on this page.
The usual drivel from a nitwit.
Julia is welcome to him, in the meantime lies, non-truths etc. Nothing else than trying to brainwash us - again.
By the way, Julia has never answered ANY question yet, not in parliament, not elsewhere.
Posted by: Liz of Vic. | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 12:02 PM
Gillard, the misandrist mattress back according to people who know her, is gone!
Posted by: David M | Monday, 31 December 2012 at 12:03 PM