Skip to content

‘The Australian’ baits Australian’s


‘The Australian’ is at its game of smears and allegations again. God I hope someone takes them on soon. Isn’t there a law about the truth content a newspaper has to have? Probably not. If newspapers it seemed had to be at least 50% truth, many would need to lose about 80% of their articles and those that left massaged from false truths to half truths.

Case in question. The headline of the following story reads thus:

TVs, batts, solar: Julia Gillard’s dollar dazzle

The implication here is all these schemes are part of the PM’s money spending binge that they claim the ALP are on despite the fact being forced to report that the Rudd and Gillard government’s have spent less in the last 4 years then Howard did in his last 2. But the idea is not to give truth here, but to smear. This is ‘The Australian’ after all.

So judging from the headline, it appears the federal government has made some kind of error. The story goes on.

THREE companies thrown out of the federal government’s $1.45 billion Home Insulation Scheme have been linked to businesses seeking to profit from taxpayer-funded solar subsidies.

And a dozen other insulation installers under the defunct scheme have been endorsed by Canberra to take part in its $308 million “digital ready” set-top box scheme.

An investigation by The Weekend Australian has revealed the extent of crossover of companies involved in generous government subsidy schemes for new and green technologies.

More than 40 installers registered with the Home Insulation Program also provided solar services, and 12 other firms once on the insulation register are now listed by the government as installers for its set-top box scheme.

Oh it sounds ominous!  A ‘crossover of companies’ involved in ‘generous government subsidy schemes’ for new and “green” technologies. It sounds by these statements that the ALP is doing something shady! Or are they. Lets continue with the story to see if that is the case.

More then 40 installers of the batts scheme are some way involved with the solar scheme it implies. Further, 12 of those are part of the TV set box scheme.

Now the print gets smaller and you would need to want to read more then just those few paragraphs. Most people though do not. They glance at the head line and maybe read the first or second paragraph. For example, if you are a glancer, you got the headline which implies Gillard is running some kind of crooked game.

If you read on you get this:

None of these companies was ever blacklisted by the federal government and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing.

Oh. So ‘The Australian’ is in no way suggesting ANY wrongdoing. Of course if you are a glancer, you would have missed this thrown away disclaimer.

Yet they go on. Not that they are suggesting any wrong doing BUT:

However, the government did name and shame 24 other businesses last year for breaching their obligations under the ceiling insulation batts scheme.

Yes we heard about the naming and shaming. Go on.

Three of those companies are now linked to solar businesses through company directors.

WAIT! The outrage! Some of the companies in the shamed solar company list have moved into solar????

But wait… there is also a disclaimer here.

There are no allegations of wrongdoing against these companies in their latest incarnation.

Hmmm. So while they are linked via directors, there is no allegation of wrongdoing in latest incarnation. Still, The Australian seems to not bother about wrong doings. They found what they were looking at when they saw the name Ossama.

Company searches show that Ossama Taha – director and secretary of Taha Group Constructions Pty Ltd, which was one of the firms shut out of the taxpayer-funded insulation scheme – is now in the solar business as director of Rock Solar Pty Ltd and Solar Panels Australia Pty Ltd.

Seriously. Ossama? Mana from heaven for The Australian.

Anyway the story goes on to mention names and companies left right and centre painting some picture of collusion. Or at least the illusion of collusion.

But then the gem of the piece. The REAL gem of the piece is the very last paragraph. Are you ready for the disclaimer of all disclaimers? It comes after attempting to smear a Mr Diab (what a foreign non white name he has) who they say declined to talk to them. Imagine the gall of the man declining to talk about it!

Anyway, as I said, the REAL gem follows.

An AFP spokeswoman said yesterday that investigations under the Home Insulation Program were still under way, but specific individuals or entities targeted in the investigations could not be identified due to privacy laws.

In other words the names and the companies mentioned above are only mentioned because they are not under any investigations which could not be printed as if they did, it would breach privacy.

So instead of naming REAL perpetrators, The Australian decides to name alleged ‘others’ who, while innocent and no allegations are being made against them, have sufficient non anglo names to make it worth the papers while to smear. Well either non anglo or females.

And really that was never their goal anyway. I am sure their lawyers ensured they make disclaimers throughout their piece to avoid any of the people they mention

The sole purpose was to make the causal link that the governments schemes are being granted to shonks and therefore shonky and therefore the government is dodgy.

The game is an old one in media. Target the current government. Replace it with another. Newspaper baron gets to own more media titles.

What really gets me is the way the story is moulded  so deceitfully to imply deceit on behalf of others and the government.

Seriously. This is no longer funny. The editorial intent to destroy the government is plainly obvious in the eyes of the public.

And the reason The Australian is so postal? Maybe they don’t like non anglo’s and women.

Or maybe there is an agenda. Here is an example of an agenda.

Influence in Australia

Murdoch’s desire for dominant cross-media ownership manifested early—in 1961 he bought an ailing Australian record label, Festival Records, and within a few years it had become the leading local recording company. He also bought a television station in WollongongNew South Wales, hoping to use it to break into the Sydney television market, but found himself frustrated by Australia’s cross-media ownership laws, which prevented him from owning both a major newspaper and television station in the same city. Since then he has consistently lobbied, both personally and through his papers, to have these laws changed in his favour. This occurred in 2006 when the Liberal-National Coalition Government, having gained control of both houses of the Australian Parliament, introduced reforms to cross-media ownership and foreign media ownership laws. The laws came into effect in early 2007.

News Limited has nearly three-quarters of daily metropolitan newspaper circulation and so maintains great influence in Australia. Internal News Limited documents reveal a brazen offer during the 2001 Federal election campaign to promote the policies of a major party in its best-selling newspapers nation-wide for almost $500,000[3]. Other documents include a marginal seats guide written by a senior business manager for internal use. It evidences a corporate strategy to target marginal seats at the 2004 election[4]. Some of the documents appeared on Media Watch[5] but received very little coverage[6].

I know what you are thinking. How dare I smear The Australian with no evidence

One can only assume the ALP told Murdoch to take a long walk off a short pier. And he has been going after them ever since it seems.

I have heard that old addage this week re Bob Brown’s presser. ‘Never take on people who buy paper by the tonne and ink by the gallon’.

Welcome to the new digital age Mr Murdoch, where you don’t need to buy ink or paper to get your message out.

A. Ghebranious  2011  (All Rights Reserved)

  1. Jennifer Baratta permalink

    Wow! and I thought NY politics was worse. YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Catching up permalink

    The media and Mr. Abbott have been very successful in burying the budget, I wonder why this is so.
    The only reason I can think of, is the budget is right for our times, that the media and Mr. Abbott could not allow the public to see in a positive way.
    Are we as stupid as the media and Mr? Abbott believes us to be?

    Which question should we be asking?
    What will it cost us or what is the price our descendants will pay.
    Keep in mind, we have a choice, they do not.

    What I finding amazing over the last week there is a suggestion, that it is not prudent for politicians to challenge the media.

    Does anyone believe that Mr. Brown, the Greens, and Labor for that matter will be treated any better for shutting up and take what the media dishes out.

    Can some one tell what puts the media above everything else in society? Where did they get the right to be a law unto themselves?

    Where is the outcry that any organization can threaten our democracy by threatening to get even with those who dare to disagree with them?

    If the media take unto themselves the right to support one side in politics, and put in place a government that suits them, they must be held accountable. In other words, if they insist on playing politics, not just reporting politics, they must be open to questioning and scrutiny, as all other parties in politics are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: