Blame Game
Artist: John Spooner (The Age)
When Rupert Murdoch was grilled by members of the UK parliament the other day, he was asked if he was the one to blame for the hacking scandal.
Rupert objected demonstrably claiming that he looks after 53,000 employees and the he is not responsible, but the blame goes to others who abused his trust.
Interesting defence there Rupert. And one the coalition here in Australia has backed to the hilt along with a smackering of LURVE for the Murdoch Press in Australia.
However something is not quite right.
You see, the Murdoch Newspapers in this country took a more vindictive approach when it came to the government . News Limited papers here went after the jugular of the government when they went after the so called Pink Batts scandal.
Lets compare.
According to Rupert, he has 53,000 employees. The government of Australia has far more than that.
According to Rupert, he can’t be the one to blame. The blame must go to those who broke his trust and the ‘code’ of ethics he instills throughout his enterprise, as well as the work practices he holds dear.
But according to Rupert’s newspaper, the government is responsible for contractors that were engaged by the government who then went on to not only in some cases deliberately break laws, but abused the trust given to them by the government and the terms of references the government laid out. According to Rupert’s papers, the government were so lackadaisically that it lead to some installers breaching laws and subsequently leading to deaths.
I find this a little hard to swallow from Rupert. More so since his own papers here have been very meek to judge Rupert, but SO willing to tear the government a new arsehole for the actions of others.
And the coalition in all this? The ones that so agree that Rupert is innocent? Well they have been pointing the blame finger at the government accusing them of manslaughter under parliamentary privilege.
Still now the coalition love to remind the public of who the Murdoch papers announced as guilty. How can you trust this government they say. Yet you ask them about Rupert and it is a different story.
This hypocrisy crawls like cold thick porridge in the pit of my stomach. On the one hand so eager to ride the wave of blame for political gain, and so quick to avoid upsetting their meal ticket to the lodge.
The reality is it was not the government that walked into your roofs to install batts but CONTRACTORS they engaged who had signed agreements to do their jobs as defined under the laws governing federal and state laws. And yet it was some of these contractors who breached those laws deliberately and intentionally to rort the system and lead to untrained staff they employed on the cheap being put into situations that cost them their lives.
It would be nice for the government if it could use the Rupert Murdoch defence. But they are not allowed to. Apparently there is a difference between an obligation to tax payers and an obligation to share holders.
It would be nice if the government had its own media newspapers where it can fling mud and wage campaigns of blame against the Murdoch press. But they do not.
Conversely, you have Murdoch press kicking the boot into the government and enraging a nation to blame while giving the coalition a little helping hand and legitimacy to accuse the government of mismanagement and, even in some cases, manslaughter.
It is exactly the same re the BER program DESPITE the fact that an enquiry has shown that the so called rorts raised by the Murdoch press and their friends the coalition turned out to be a beat up. The report came back saying that any over spending was at around 3% of expenditure.
Here is a experiment for you. Say you need a box of detergent. You can get into your car and travel all the way to the supermarket and get it and save money at the cost of the time you spent travelling, or you can walk over to your local shop, buy it at a more expensive price, but save time.
Apparently this was the rorting. That and public schools throughout the nation had been neglected for decades. Any work needed not only had to install the new buildings, but to also upgrade aging infrastructure as opposed to private schools that had a more consistent level of ongoing maintenance.
Still, the Murdoch press brayed for blood. Let’s see how loud they bray at their own boss.
…
A. Ghebranious 2011 (All Rights Reserved)
Ash's Machiavellian Bloggery 
Wow! and I thought American reporters were off guess not. Great work Ash!
I made a point elsewhere a long time ago, that the moment Abbott accused Peter Garret in QT of manslaughter he should have been slapped down on the spot. Kevin failed to strike there and then. Then followed up with an apology on insiders second strike. It gave Abbott air space and he has not looked back and the result is where we are today. A come back by kevin or anyone would have been that all the people that died in Hospital whilst Abbott was Minister of health is down to him and then start on the rest of his ex ministerial front and back bench. The Pink batts fiasco and the BER follow up would have been dead and buried before it wasted any more oxygen. And another point I made was the Kevin Rudd’s PR team should have been replaced asap. I won the argument with my Liberal next door neighour on the Batts and BER and is has remained closed since.Finally the rorters of thboth schemes are business who have been identified and banned from all State and Federal contracts in the future.
Truth like beauty seem to be in the eye of the beholder.
I do hope these people with such high standards demand the same of any future Caolition governments.
If a lie is seen as something that you say and you intend as you say. Later down the line you change your mind, that now appears to be the new definition of a lie.
To further complicate the matter, the PM did promise to address climate change at the same interview with a pricing mechanism on carbon.
The PM has done this. There is a difference between the two. What is been introduced could look like a tax in the beginning, the truth is that it is not.
So the PM is being condemn for doing as she said she would. Introducing a market mecahanism to deal with carbo emissions.
I question the standards of truth that smoe are demanding. What the are saying that a government has to indroduced everything it mentions during the campaign to the letter. There must be nothing changed or admitted. They much do this even if it is faound post telection that there us a better way of carry out the policies. They must go ahead, even if the makeup of parliament does not allow success.
I suggest that would lead to weak and bad goverance