I refer to the Crikey article yesterday by Fergus Ryan (“Kevin Rudd thinks he’s still relevant to China-Australia relations”). I presume this is the same Fergus Ryan who used to be a journalist for the Murdoch media. Remarkably, that fact seems not to have been disclosed under his byline in the article posted.
If Ryan, or for that matter Crikey, are interested in a substantive presentation of my views on Turnbull’s mismanagement of the Australia-China relationship, then I suggest they read the full text of my op-ed in The Weekend Australian on February 24 this year.
The methodology employed by Ryan is amateur beyond belief. Over the years, I have posted over 600 times on Sina Weibo and sent some 12,400 tweets. This has given rise to thousands of comments of all shades on both platforms. Based on all that, Ryan randomly selects five posts and a handful of comments to prove his contention concerning my views on the Australia-China relationship, China more generally and alleged inconsistencies therein. This represents a sample of 0.04%. One would expect better methodological standards from a high-school student.
The bottom line is, Ryan’s polemic has nothing to do with the evidence. Given his historical relationship with the Murdoch media, he seems simply to be running a line on behalf of Malcolm Turnbull, in an attempt to defend Turnbull’s otherwise indefensible mismanagement of the Australia-China relationship. Predictable. But let’s not pretend it represents objective journalism, let alone scholarship or rigorous research.
How this sort of shoddy analysis is consistent with the independent research standards also required of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (which is funded by the Australian government), where Ryan also apparently works, is something for both he and his employer to explain.
It’s good to hear the other side, but I would have liked to read some actual contrary evidence. This seemed most invective.
Moving To Paraguay is right about the invective, it’s what what KR does.
What part of “just shut up and go away Kevin” does this man not get.
It may have been accompanied by some invective but K-Rudd’s point is right. The article was worthless and ought not have appeared in Crikey.
well said Mr Rudd, Ryans article is what you expect from the murdoch bottom feeders, they spend their pathetic lives grovelling to the black prince in the vain hope of a pat on the head but like many before them when he`s finished with them they`ll be thrown on the scrap heap, the good thing is old Rupert`s apparently getting close to meeting his maker, when that happens the share holders at news ltd will get rid of the remaining Murdoch clan and clean up the shop to try and regain the middle ground readership they`ve lost from Murdoch extreme right wing bias and only catering for the 40% redneck readership base. in a dwindling market news needs to go for the 50% / 60%intelligent readership that have deserted him .
This does not qualify as an “article” it’s just a letter from Mr Rudd.
I’d love to hear his opinion more extensively. This just feels like a prickly response rather than a well written article the likes of which I’ve seen from him in the past.
Yes, when you read Ryan’s article it does feel like one of those pointless, tidbit morsels, simply left to bait and perhaps even encourage mindless, accusatory responses. But no matter how hard self-proclaimed ‘analysts’ like Ryan spin the wheel, Australia’s current public relations with China is like every other single thing that the Liberals have touched in their latest two terms – complete shit. And trying to dredge up old emotions about Kevin Rudd’s supposed personality is, like Brian Crooks wrote, real ‘bottom feeder’ stuff.
I mean, I’m no fan of Kevin Rudd and think he needs to stay out of Australian political life for a good long while but he’s objectively completely right about that hatchet job article from Ryan. Wow, Weibo censored stuff which was even mildly related to a controversial topic? You don’t say! How it was meant to prove anything about Rudd I don’t know.