The Conversation has now launched its election fact-checking site. The opening set includes a factcheck I’ve done, on a claim by Tony Abbott that it now takes three years to get a mine approved compared to less than twelve months six years ago. This is wrong on about as many levels as it can possibly be, the most important being
* The claim rests on a single coal mine in NSW, which was initially rejected, then approved on appeal
* The implied blame is directed to the Commonwealth government, which changed in 2007. But mine approval is mostly a state function, and most states have switched from Labor to LNP governments in the last six years
Meanwhile, there was a Twitterstorm over the weekend, about a story run by independent journalist Margo Kingston, who used FOI to determine that Abbott had been made to repay $9400, claimed as expenses while he was promoting his book Battlelines in 2009. MSM weren’t much interested, but the barrage of tweets has elicited at least one story, here in the Age.
John Quiggin 
Margo Kingston’e article is a textbook example of real journalism.
People should read both links (kudos to JQ for providing both in accordance with the unwritten rules of internet courtesy and transparency – the Age doesn’t do that in this case).
The Age piece is a textbook example of Establishment Media selectivity.
‘The Punters’ would be intrigued to discover the “Minchin Protocol” (no mention in the Age) which allows pollies caught out misusing expenses to quietly repay the amount without fuss.
Same Punters would be puzzled that Slipper’s offer to repay was rejected on the basis that in his case the AFP were already involved (no mention in the Age). Kingston queries who it was that got the AFP involved (Age doesn’t).
The paradox of the Establishment Media is that they continue to hold undeserved power and influence while doing such consistently poor journalism, and they navel gaze about why readership has spiralled downward. As Bianca Hall’s piece shows – eve when they get it right the do it wrong.
@Megan
I meant to comment on the absence of a link in the Age piece. Typical of MSM in cases like this, and very bad practice.
I’m impressed with The Conversation fact checking, but the thing I find lacking in the fact-checking sphere is context.
In this piece:
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-coles-and-woolies-control-80-of-the-market-15418
the authors do a great job of checking the facts, and also have some context with respect to the USA market, but I think we need more. The essence of a fact check is the context, if there isn’t any then there isn’t really any point in checking the fact. In this case whilst Katter might be 10-15% out, and this is most likely not malicious, is the point he is trying to make valid? Do we have an effective duopoly in supermarket retail in Australia? Do we even know if we do?
I think it is likely we do, as we were told the major chains were able to influence the wholesale price of milk. But is this true? I don’t know. I’d like to be told in this context.
I think a good example of mostly context-free fact checking is this piece on politi-fact:
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/23/joe-hockey/joe-hockey-says-interest-payments-government-debt-/
Joe Hockey is trying to scare people with a big number. They do mention at the end that we have a small debt compared to many other countries, but the true context of this should be “would the opposition do anything differently?”. In fact under the previous LNP coalition government there were howls of protest when then Treasurer Costello planned to wind up the Government bond market. At that point they committed to always issuing government bonds to provide a base of stable liquid debt for the markets to access. Even if the debt repayments were far less, it sounds a lot less scarey to say “we pay $35m a day in interest, and if I was treasurer it would only be $10m a day!”. The intent was to make it sound scary and big, and it is this that people need the information to understand and contextualise the statement.
For the most part I’ve been disappointed with Politifact. Some of the stuff they have chosen to fact-check is pretty trivial.
I understand Abbott has declined to be interviewed on the ABC for months, perhaps a year. If so it may be that simple mantras and sidestepping tough questions is good strategy. The people who want answers probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway. I wonder in turn if that will validate putting ‘efficiency dividends’ on the ABC after the election.
Meanwhile Rudd seems to be confirming long held views about his style. Every week more boats arrive seemingly unfazed by any tough new approach whatever that might be. Abbott may win office by saying the least possible and not responding to fact checks.
Hermit – it’s a “small target” tactic. All oppositions do it as much as possible. However it entails a few risks:-
1. The public might think badly of you for staying low and hence you may actually lose votes.
2. You may win office but not have a clear mandate for your changes.
3. Your team may become lazy on policy development.
Of course the risks have to be balanced against the benefits.
Worth noting that Gillard avoided talk back radio and hence scrutiny by those most likely to be critics.
A friend recently alerted me to a coalition policy to replace the Carbon Tax – the formation of a Green Army to do small environmental pick and shovel projects like restoring sand dunes. Aside from the fact this work for this dole scheme was introduced at least 15-20 years ago (it was called Green Corps) the actual type of work described notionally by Greg Hunt and Abbot jointly is, as with mines, a State responsibility. The Feds at best give a little money and take all the credit in these situations.
Together with the mines example this suggests the scattergun attack Labor policy is being supplanted by a policy of scattergun adoption of old inapplicable ideas and recycling them on the basis they will puff out the coalition policy portfolio in the fashion of a financial bubble and appeal to small portions of swinging electorates as a nice idea when the latter don’t have sufficient information or don’t read history books.
Still given the history of financial bubbles – we never seem to learn – maybe they are on to a good thing.
p.s. Ed Husic was on The Bolt Report on Sunday. He was a little muddled but I think it made him look good on balance. Very few MP’s from the ALP have been willing to front up on this show. Although the new deputy PM is a notable exception. If conservatives are meant to go on the left leaning ABC then it seems fair to expect the progressives to face the conservative media.
p.p.s. I’d like them all to front libertarian media but we don’t really have any.
I think you’re being incredibly over-generous by calling the media’s disciplined malpractice in this instance just “bad practice”. I’m personally going to assume malice.
False equivalence. Bolt lies and dissembles, e.g. climate change, aboriginal authors. He does not argue in good faith. There is literally no point going on his show, it will not change his mind or his behaviour.
Feel free to point out the “left leaning ABC” shows/presenters that behave as Bolt does.
@TerjeP
You can’t possibly be suggesting that any politician is obliged to appear on a show with such an incompetent and irredeemably discredited host.
Terje, “the ABC” is not the left-wing equivalent of the Bolt Report (which was set up as a deliberately partisan disinformation outlet on Reinhart’s orders to channel 10).
The comparison is dumb.
We saw what happened last time she went on talk-back radio – cost the presenter his job!
Thanks for the analysis, I have just been watching the Drum who have been discussing the red/green tape issue. It’s pretty poor that the opposition are unable to be accurate with specific claims of overregulation, particularly when the specific regulations that you’re trying to change ought to be the point, rather than some vague notion of overregulation.
The Bolt show is still on? That took me back to Micallef’s last show:
All used by courts to describe Bolt’s work.
Bolt, good for a laugh perhaps but you wouldn’t want anyone who takes him seriously anywhere near sharp objects or the governance of a chook raffle (or a country, obviously).
maybe there is something in fact checking after all see http://factcheck.org/2013/02/factchecking-obamas-sotu/
Terje, I’m used to it by now, but your continued support for Bolt still stuns me. Your need to defend him must reveal to you, at some level, that libertarianism, as a political movement, requires lies to survive. You know that Bolt is a liar and a fraud, but you continue to pursue false equivalence.
If you have any faith in your own political position, you ought to be able to sustain it while admitting that most of your current political allies are, like Bolt and the IPA, strangers to the truth. The inference, I’d suggest is that you should withdraw from party politics, including those of the LDP, and become an independent.
Bolt is a polemicist, not a journalist. The presenters on other ABC programs are employees of the public broadcaster and subject to its charter. To describe the broadcaster as left-leaning is tosh. In fact it bends over backwards, forwards and turns itself inside out to be seen as fair and balanced. The degree of its acommodation to the Right is such that it routinely sacrifices journalistic integrity for false equivalence and he-said-she-said stenography dressed up as news. What we actually need on the ABC is fearless journalism, but apart from the odd Background Briefing or Four Corners (when it concerns a subject that won’t upset the culture warriors – like live cattle exports), it shows every sign of being intimidated by the bullies of the Right.
@Jim Rose
Jim, your sensitivity is showing. Why else raise the “Look Over There! An Obama!” link?
For the record, I am appalled that he issues a “kill list” of people marked for extra-judicial death by drone every Tuesday.
You have never shown any concern for that aspect of US governance.
For projects requiring an EPBC Act triggered EIS in Queensland, the timeline most major consultancies use now is 5 years – from proponent commencement of the approval process to conditional approval. A number of high profile projects have run longer than this recently, and a number are currently in approvals at longer time frames.
The key issues are:
-the whole time frame, from EIS commencement to approval,
-quantity over quality of EIS information,
-the levels of duplication and inefficiencies associated with government approvals,
-staffing levels, and competencies, in government to review EIS documents
-the amount of information that is withheld, or deliberately understudied, in the EIS process by proponents
-the general uselessness of the EIS process to consistently influence project design to deliver outcomes that reduce potential impacts to low levels of significance
Fact checking Abbott, does little to address the concern he is echoing from business, regarding the above. Nor does it address consistent concerns from EIS public submitters, of which Abbott is largely disinterested.
Not worth the paper it is written on.
I’ve been stunned for years by some of the positions and people that you support. So I suppose we are even.
Obviously I don’t expect those of a leftist persuasion to like Andrew Bolt greatly but it is somewhat disappointing, and rather low, that you refer to him as a liar and as a fraud. For the record I do not “know” Bolt to be a liar or a fraud although I sometimes disagree with him.
The closest thing the ABC has to “The Bolt Report” is “Insiders”. While the Bolt Report is quite consistent in having somebody from the ALP tribe and somebody from the Coalition tribe during all panel discussions the situation is not so balanced on Insiders where the panel is frequented primarily by those of the ALP tribe. So I agree that they are not equivalent. Bolt makes more space for those with dissenting views and is more transparent and up front about his own biases.
My personal characterization of the typical 3 member guests invited to insiders would be 1 right wing professional opinion providing pundit and 2 respected objective MSM political journalists who generally don’t argue along ideological lines, although sometimes (left leaning) David Marr is invited who can sometimes get involved with such arguments.
Terje, have you actually looked at the list of who gets invited to appear on Insiders (both commentators and politicians)? You can’t just get away with these sort of baseless, factless assertions.
As for Bolt, many of the people you call ‘ALP tribe’ are former politicians/operators turned ALP critics/dissidents, or people from the far right of the ALP spectrum – most progressives won’t have a bar of these anymore. Examples: Michael Costa (epitome of the NSW Right), Mark Latham, Bruce Hawker (strong Rudd supporter & Gillard critic, interviewed at time when JG was still PM), Gary Johns (very ex-ALP, now IPA man & right wing culture warrior), Kristina Keneally, Richard Marles (Rudd man – see Hawker), former senator John Black (reactionary blokes club man, like Gary Johns lite, writes critical pieces in Fin), Liberty Sanger (right of party, partner of David Feeney), Warren Mundine (disaffected ex-ALP, quit late 2012 to much fanfare in The Oz among other RW publications). You can see the trend here – these are all people who are unrepresentative of the progressive point of view. They are, in short, useful for Bolt & his followers.
@TerjeP
I recall those halcyon days of BA Santamaria’s Point of View, a Sunday morning monologue of political guidance to the rightwing faithful. His authority came from a legendary political influence built up over decades which Bolt doesn’t seem to have, although he claims large readership. It’s hard to see Santamaria getting traction nowadays: judging from the blogosphere, today’s right are less religious, less looking for wise leadership, and more wanting the excitement of a fight.
So a clash of talking heads rather than furious agreement is probably a good business model for Bolt:the frisson of FOX TV is his expressed goal. I don’t know if his program is successful but, as has been remarked by others, the right is largely absent from the thought space because rightwingers are rarely thinkers. I’m not sure there is a big space for it in the lower temperature environment of Australia.
Terje P, I only know of Andrew Bolt from the comments section of this blog, but I googled “bolt lies” and the first article of his I came up with was this:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/its-a-joke-right/story-e6frfifx-1111113082910
So there is really no question of whether or not he is a liar. But then maybe you missed that one.
@TerjeP
I’ve never brought myself to watch The Bolt Report, but your claim that it is even-handed in having Coalition and Labor guests is easily checkable. I reviewed the ten most recent episodes that are documented by IMDB (note: the IMDB episode list is not up-to-date or complete). There were 24 guest appearances made over these ten episodes. Of these, 14 came from the Coalition side, including six appearances by current federal Coalition politicians and four appearances by former federal Coalition politicians. There were seven appearances from guests on the Labor side, but no appearances by current federal Labor politicians. There was one appearance by a former federal Labor politician, three by former state Labor politicians, two by a Labor strategist and one by a former ALP national president. The other three guests were a columnist with The Australian, Bob Carter and Bjorn Lomborg.
In seven out of the ten episodes, Coalition guests outnumbered Labor guests, whilst Labor guests outnumbered Coalition guests in only one episode (the other two episodes had no guests from political parties).
On the face of it, then, Bolt’s program is clearly biased in its choice of guests. But it’s much worse than it appears, when we realise that former Labor politicians can easily be vocal critics of current Labor policies or change sides all together. One of the guests, former ALP national president Warren Mundine, is now aligned with Abbott. Another, former Queensland Treasurer Keith De Lacy, went on to become a mining executive who has naturally argued against the carbon tax and the pre-deal mining tax. Former New South Wales MLC John Della Bosca, who accounts for two of the seven Labor appearances, has been a vocal critic of the carbon tax.
The natural conclusion to draw, Terje, is that you are unreliable as a source of information about The Bolt Report. Fortunately, you are sufficiently transparent in your biases that I never thought for a moment that you might be.
If you had watched the show you would know that Bolt outlines from week to week who from the ALP has been invited but decided not to appear. Anthony Albanese is a very notable exception. He has been on the show several times as a guest. And more recently Ed Husic also turned up to discuss the Koran controversy as well as Labor policies (or lack there of). You can watch that interview here:-
However I did not refer to balance in the profile of the guest list but to the panelists. Both Insiders and The Bolt Report have a panelist discussion of current political events. Insiders is much more partisan in who is selected to come on as expert commentators.
If you want to look at really biased panels however you can’t go past Q&A on the ABC where I don’t think they have ever had a panel where the majority were inclined towards the right of politics but where they routinely have a panel where the majority is inclined to the left of politics. In a nation that tends to split 50/50 in voting intentions this bias is pretty telling.
In any case JQ went beyond a charge of bias and accuses Bolt of being both a liar and of being a fraud. IMHO those claims don’t stack up at all. I suspect they are more about personal animosity over personal altercations JQ has had with AB.
@Ronald Brak
I browser the article you linked. There is certainly opinion in the article that many would disagree with. However I’m not sure which bit of it you regard to be a lie. Are you saying Bolt does not actually believe that stuff about Al Gore using lots of electricity? Or are you saying that Al Gore doesn’t actually use lots of electricity and Bolt is mistaken?
In other words is this charge that Bolt levels against Al Gore wilfully wrong, just wrong, or in fact correct but you don’t like the tone?
@aidan
I reject the first sentence outright. The second sentence is mostly irrelevant. Going on Q&A will not change the opinions of Tony Jones. Going on the JQ blog will not change the opinions of JQ. Heck I’ve been coming here for an eternity and JQ is as left wing as ever. As a politician you go on a particular show in order to broaden the audience you reach and in order to subject your thinking to it’s harshest critics. I don’t come here to receive praise for my worldview, ideas and outlook. I come here because I want to hear what others have to say about those ideas and to see where there is common ground. Plus I want to hear of ideas I may not hear of in other quarters.
TejeP, maybe you got the wrong article. On mine it says, “Here he was, receiving film’s highest honour for his smash documentary, in which he warns that within a century the seas will rise up to 6m while monster hurricanes tear through what’s left of our cities.
Never mind that scientists reject such wild claims.”
I take it I don’t need to explain the problem. (But I will if you want me to.)
@TerjeP
If you see my comment at #13, those words in block quotes are findings made against Bolt by courts.
He has been found after due judicial process (at which he was very well represented and advised legally) to be dishonest, lacking good faith etc…
Unfortunately your opinion is wrong. Those claims not only do ‘stack up’, they have the advantage of being judicial findings.
Last ratings I saw of the Bolt show were tiny. You like his work but he is still a liar who doesn’t argue in good faith.
@TerjeP
Okay, so most of the show consists of Bolt editorialising or interviewing his political friends, and part of the show consists of a discussion panel made up ostensibly of one Coalition-affiliated commentator and one Labor-affiliated commentator, except that most of the Labor-affiliated commentators are actually estranged from the party and heavily critical of Labor’s policies in a way that accords with Bolt’s views (e.g. John Black, Michael Costa, Warren Mundine), as both Martin Spalding and I have discussed above. At least according to the summaries on Bolt’s blog (and it’s corroborated by the little I’ve seen and read), the two panellists seem to almost always end up agreeing that Labor’s policies are terrible. Even if the supposedly Labor-affiliated commentators were representative of Labor viewpoints, it seems strange to say that “Bolt makes more space for those with dissenting views”, when, again, the show consists mostly of him editorialising and interviewing his political friends.
You could have argued from the start that the show couldn’t be balanced because genuinely left-wing politicians and public intellectuals refuse to appear on it, but you didn’t; you tried to pretend it was balanced. I do think the refusal of most Labor politicians, and virtually all centrist and left-wing public intellectuals, to show any interest in Bolt is part of the reason his guest list skews so far to the right. But I probably draw different conclusions about the cause of this than you do.
@TerjeP
Before rejecting the sentence, I urge you to take to the internet where you will find many examples of just how true it is. For my money the most egregious example is Bolt’s stance(s) on pokies. Here’s Bolt in 2004:
“They are evil, mindless, addictive and without virtue. They are poker machines and Victoria should switch them off. I LOATHE our pokies. I wish the Kirner Government had never let these foul machines loose on our communities, to pick the pockets of the poor, rob their children and tempt the weak to crime.”
Furthermore he was quite clear about his solution:
“We must ban them, as we banned them before, when we had moral gumption. Let’s ban them, now we’ve seen the havoc they wreak….Ban them. Help the weak. Ban them. Think of the children. Ban them. Protect the poor. Ban them. Show some heart. Some virtue. Just ban them.”
It’s all fun and games when pokies are a means to criticise the Kirner Labour government, but as soon as Labour suggets pre-commitment legislation Bolt launched a tirade of condemnation (Bolt 2012: “Thou shalt not ban pokies”), while neglecting to mention that part of his salary at the time was being paid by John Singleton, who was running a large part of the pro-pokies campaign.
On the evidence it seems clear that Bolt will completely reverse his opinion on matters of principle to a) aid political allies and b) line his own pockets. This is highly unethical behaviour and about as far from arguing in good faith as one can get. Do you disagree?
@Luke Elford
I said the show was more balanced than Insiders. I also said that Bolt was transparent in his bias. Don’t put false words in my mouth.
@Nathan
I’ve actually followed Bolts commentary on poker machines quite closely over more recent years. He has always been pretty clear about his past position. And he has separated his opinion regarding the politics from his opinion about what is workable and from his opinion about what should ideally be done. He actually struck me as sympathetic to the goals the ALP were trying to achieve.
Of course if your brain can’t handle a sophisticated opinion you would miss all of that.
p.s. I don’t personally agree with his prohibitionist tendencies on this issue.
@Megan
Yeah well we all know that court case was a farce. The coalition has said it will amend the law it was based on.
Terje, no one is putting words in yr mouth. You said, and I quote: ‘While the Bolt Report is quite consistent in having somebody from the ALP tribe…’ and ‘Bolt makes more space for those with dissenting views’. A few commenters then went about systematically refuting those claims, using evidence. Where is your evidence about the leaning of people (panellists or guests) on Insiders?
As for the claim that Bolt ‘is more transparent and up front about his own biases’ – true, but so what? Is bias somehow a good thing?
@Megan When Obama addressed Parliament – drone strikes and all – the greens were all smiles and acted like they were getting autographs from a celebrity or sports hero.
The United States has the right, as a nation, to use force to defend itself. This right applies not only after a nation has suffered an attack, but also in anticipation of an imminent attack.
When just wars are fought, the renegade left calls for targeted force; when there is targeted force, this force is always insufficiently targeted. “The last point was intended to make fighting impossible”.
Obama acquired legal authority for drone warfare from the Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Every member of the enemy forces and leadership are a legitimate target in war regardless of whether they can be caught or pose an imminent threat.
The U.S military can hunt and destroy pirates and their support networks “wherever” a commander “shall find them,” in Thomas Jefferson’s words. Terrorists have the same legal status as pirates. The USA’s first two wars were against pirates.
Be careful for what you wish for when demanding strict compliance by Obama with international law. Bush 43 – the big softie that he was – stayed his hand on the long-standing international law stating that francs tireurs, upon capture, can be subjected to a field court martial and summary execution. This included David Hicks.
@TerjeP
Firstly, all of those findings against Bolt will remain regardless of the changing of the law. All he had to do to stay within the relevant section of the act was to act honestly and in good faith – he didn’t.
Secondly, in “Herald and Weekly times & Bolt v Popovic [2003]” the Victorian Court of Appeal found:
“Of course if your brain can’t handle a sophisticated opinion you would miss all of that.”
Indeed.
@Jim Rose
Jim Rose, setting aside the legality or otherwise of Obama administration’s drone operations, wherever did you get the idea that terrorists are hostis humani generis?
There isn’t even an agreed definition of terrorism at international law, let alone an agreement that they have the same status as pirates. They’re generally treated either as enemy combatants or as criminals. The case for the legality of Obama’s drone strikes rests (as I understand it) on the view that the targets are enemy combatants, not hostis humani generis.
I’m not sure it matters much to me if a mine takes a couple of years longer to get approved , why does resource extraction have to happen as fast as possible. Why not leave some for future generations .
Also there is a growing area of research into basic personality differences between conservatives and progressives . Because of common predispositions conservatives are less likely to argue in good faith .Makes sense, as to them selfishness is a virtue and their opponents capacity for empathy is a weakness to be exploited .
In a similar vein -Steve Jobs’ address to uni grads that went viral just after his death is a disgrace .He advises them to have singe minded belief ,not to listen to anyone who disagrees ,and to just push ahead with your vision under any circumstances – dont take no for an answer ,never give up ,dont let anyone get in your way. It worked for him (1 in a million) but imagine a whole society full of self centered bullies like that .
The left, seeking balance and inclusion, are being taken for a ride by the right who are happy to argue in bad faith .
Jim Rose , I think its lucky not many countries define open warfare so widely .
@Jim Rose
“Gott mit uns! eh, Jim?
@sunshine
“… why does resource extraction have to happen as fast as possible.” – sunshine
Because they know it’s the end game. What they don’t rip out in this generation (fossil fuels that is) will be stranded assets forever because either;
(a) we will have banned fossil fuels to save the climate and biosphere; or
(b) we will have wrecked the biosphere and ended global civilization.
Either way, they want all the profits, all the wealth and all the power now. After all, they don’t care if the world dies when they die. In fact, I think that is their deepest wish and goal. Nothing less than this black desire would seem to explain the elite’s perverse drive to destroy everything.
@sunshine
I agree with you but I would go a bit further and say I would be happy for development approvals to take longer to be approved the further we are into a mining boom. I would expect that mines in the easiest place to develop, and those that have simpler environmental issues to solve, would be developed first. The longer we are into the boom, the more environmentally sensitive areas are left to mine. I am not saying the regulations would change, but if development approvals don’t get more difficult to acquire, then the regulations are not tough enough in the first place. Of course I am assuming there aren’t any significant technical developments to deal with specific environmental challenges.
I also think that if you asked random people in the street whether they think that the major problem in Australia is that we aren’t digging coal and iron ore out of the ground quickly enough, you’d probably receive a quizzical look or two.
@Tim Macknay
hostis humani generis gives a certain kind of supporter of the various abuses of human rights collectively designated the War on Terror a warm inner glow. They cannot, mind you, produce and legal authority except John Yoo to say that the principle applies to terrorists. Nor, apparently, are they familiar with the the case of Filártiga v. Peña-Irala where a US Circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
It may be that the warm inner glow grows a little cold at the thought that the courts, which have never found terrorists to be hostis humani generis, have found torturers to be enemies of humankind who are subject to the rule.
@Martin Spalding
I’m happy enough for you to quoted things I actually said. I’m not happy with people, such as Luke, putting false words in my mouth.
Just watched a rerun of yesterday’s Q&A from the ABC. Once again the panel was typically stacked. Our ABC is biased by omission. The ABC charter may as well be toilet paper.
Terje has a terminal case of the false-equivalances.
Lies must be given equal footing with truth, or else there is bias.
@TerjeP
But when are you going to explain your support for Bolt, a proven liar who argues without good faith?
Lying is OK if it supports truthiness?