Going to work This week is the federal government’s women’s safety summit, (virtually) bringing together women’s advocates, business and community leaders and academics with the aim of guiding the next national plan to address violence against women and children that this government somehow didn’t feel too embarrassed to hold.
But it does appear the organisers have some sense of the topics they’d like to get a little less attention. There is only one instance of two panels clashing: the panel on proactive measures and the Respect@Work report, both of which run from 2.30 to 3.30 this afternoon.
You may recall from our coverage last week that the government’s response to the report has been utterly contemptible — it ignored it for a full year, then committed to implementing all 55 recommendations “wholly, in part or in principle” to take the heat off during the disastrous handling of the alleged rape of a staffer, before slinking away and then legislating a mere six recommendations (out of the 16 that could have made it into law). So it’s notable that everything in the summit gets its own clear air.
Huh? Still on the topic of the national summit, Australian of the Year Grace Tame was interviewed about that and other topics by Nine’s bandana-sporting historian Peter FitzSimons. It kicks off with the following “question”:
You seem to have reinvented the whole Australian of the Year position. We have had ambassadors and advocates, but you are no less than an activist! You no sooner got the biggest gong the government hands out than you started banging on it before banging on them, to push your cause to end sexual abuse in this country? (Emphasis added.)
You may see why we’ve put the word question in quotation marks — the eagle-eyed viewer will notice there’s not a question to be found in that truly tortured piece of imagery followed by a question mark. Full marks to Tame, who manages to conjure a response that isn’t “What the fuck are you talking about?”
Get with that zero News Corp is to commit to the milquetoast and tardy “net zero by 2050” target. The news was broken this morning through a rather credulous report from the Nine papers. (Calling News Corp “an influential player in Australia’s decade-long climate wars” is rather like calling Germany “an influential player in World War II”.) The details are sketched elsewhere in Crikey, but it’s worth noting Rupert Murdoch’s personal views: whatever his personal scepticism: “The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt.”
Oh, except that wasn’t part of this campaign. This was in 2006, before his empire helped expand Andrew Bolt’s audience into the millions, before Ian Plimer and Peter Ridd and Bjorn Lomborg, before hitting upon and rehashing the nonsense that the Bureau of Meteorology is tampering with climate data, before tying itself in knots to give the impression that bushfires were the work of arsonists and green tape.
Fifteen years have gone over the falls, during which action on climate change has been regularly fatal for any prime minister who has dared attempt it. But, hey, great, we’re sure that a two-week campaign in October (just in time for the next season of Succession!) will totally square the ledger.
Closing the book Facebook continues to have a rubbish year. It’s just been fined 225 million euros for WhatsApp data breaches, which is more than double the estimated cost of all those ACCC news deals, and the US Federal Trade Commission has refiled to break it up.
And finally, in what feels like an admission, Axios reported last week that the tech giant plans to pivot away from “political posts” and current events content.
Will be interesting to read a bit of history in 100 years, just to see how they look back on Murdoch the Elder and by then, Murdoch the Younger.
Won’t be pretty, I imagine.
Does it need a 100 years murdoch has grafted slime money to build a powerful empire that destroys many worthy things: honesty fairness and the health of the planet his father built fame from telling honesty in hardship his mother a supporter of the young and needy
A legacy that is almost trashed
In a hundred years Rupert’s name will be just a footnote in history and held on a par with the likes of Stalin or Hitler. The lowest of the low. I was going to include the likes of Joe McCarthy and Trump, but those two were just light weights compared to the evil of Murdoch.
One wonders why the Republic Movement has stalled over the past decade or more…..
Obviously you don’t. And just as obviously, you don’t need facts to back up your opinion. FitzSimons has actually revived the Republican movement, although as with most causes it could do with new blood.
But then facts won’t suit your assertions, will they ?
If you bothered to ask me a question vs. flying off the handle I have issue with neither Fitzsimmons nor the Republican movement, but the constant white anting starting with Monarchist Howard and amongst many of Fitzsimmon’s media &/or political counterparts.
The latter has always been an issue, having media offer neutral facts to inform citizens about a republic as opposed to what we get i.e. -ve agitprop and scare tactics used to oppose change e.g. Howard not being involved till, he decided to two weeks before the last referendum that he would (like Brexit needing the race/immigration card) and rumours e.g. working holiday rights would be lost (simply untrue).
On the latter, many young Australians resident in the UK (& many Asian/African heritage British) were able to vote in the EU referendum (vs. EU citizens & UK citizens away ten years, not) and voted ‘no’! Why? Because they were (mis)led into believing that a vote for Brexit would mean more work and related visas for their non UK friends and families, absolutely rubbish.
Fact is now, more and more Australians have neither connection with the UK nor support for the Monarchy when they are more likely to have EU &/or Asian passports, through dual citizenship; unless of course they worship 19th century Anglo colonialism aka many of our skip MPs.
I love you, Crikey.
Huh? Glass houses and stones being thrown all over that Fitzsimons story. So you think you know a question when you see one? Given Crikey’s previous contortions of the English Language, it’s odd that you don’t recognise one of your own techniques: a statement that you pose as a question, letting the person being interviewed know exactly where you stand on the subject, and what sort of response you expect.
Oh I could cite examples all day.
Cite one, properly, accurately. And, who cares much? Assess the words, as said. Your stated intent is yours, but, what you say, fairly correct, is now regarded as normal “rhetoric”, the loudmouth’s natural strategy. Who actually trusts any media type? Later, some of Merde Dog’s wriggling gets a run. Trust the News group for nothing, no decency, honesty, accuracy.
Who cares much indeed? That would seem to be the state of the world. No standards, no quality, no respect for language, no responsibility, just pillory. And, interminably, ‘you know what I mean’. But the basis of many arguments is this: I know the truth, therefore anyone who challenges that truth is fair game. It’s used by loudmouths as well as non-loudmouths.
The lack of context in the article is telling. I watched that interview and that point was not put in an aggressive or condemnatory way and was accepted by her as being a fair summary of Grace Tame’s approach to the job.
Perhaps Charlie Lewis needs to revise his own obvious dislike of FitzSimons and try writing objectively. After all, we’re all sick and tired of bombastic, petty ego-driven b/s from ‘journalists’, aren’t we ?