« Shock and awe we’re in Iraq
CPSU coffee leaves bitter taste for Lindsay’s incumbent »

How much more WAR d?

In tonight’s Leaders debate we saw arrogance, obsequiousness and finally some assertiveness.

First the arrogance:

“Mr Howard revealed in two days time, Australian force commanders will begin discussions with their coalition partners about the evolving role for those forces.”-Source

This is supposed to be a revelation. What, after four years this is the first time that the Australian Military talk to the US military about their evolving role.

Then the obsequiousness: What have the government and the Australian force commanders been doing up until this big discussion tomorrow- reading the tea leaves, tossing a coin, whatever they were told?

Finally, some assertiveness:
After having the live feed was cut, sourced from an alternative place, cut again then sourced again, Channel Nine’s director of news and current affairs John Westacott defended using the worm live to air.

“I think it’s (the worm) an editorial decision for the Nine Network, not for the leader of the Liberal Party what we put to air. I can only agree with [News Ltd chairman] John Hartigan in his excellent Andrew Olle lecture where he said that political interference in journalism is increasing, not diminishing. And this is a perfect example – the leader of the Liberal Party trying to dictate one of the key events in the election campaign.” -Source

worm.jpg

Image from here

This entry was posted on Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 am and is filed under Anti-war, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Click to leave a comment.

Comments spamproofed by Akismet

Trackback disabled until further notice.


9 Responses to “How much more WAR d?”

  1. weezil Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    I Blame the Press Club! Specifically, I would put a couple of beers and a few valiums on it that Glenn Milne gave the order to kill the feeds.

    But moreover, I blame John HoWARd! Ray Martin said ‘This was not the Liberal Party’s debate…’ and that much is quite true.

    BTW, all toothed worms that bite John Howard are red, don’tchaknow. 😉

  2. Suki Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Techies are clearly the Librarians of our time.

  3. weezil Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    SOME techies are the librarians of our time… some techies shut off live feeds under political pressure…

    Can’t wait until the truth on this one comes out… and it won’t reflect well on HoWARd, regardless.

  4. mgk: Machine Gun Keyboard Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    […] h/t to SHAO for finding the killer worm pic. […]

  5. weezil Says:
    October 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    From 22 Oct Crikey newsletter:

    Who pulled Nine’s worm debate? The mystery deepens

    Andrew Dodd writes:

    It’s not just the worm that’s turned. The entire Nine Network has gone feral in the wake of last night’s leaders debate.

    Nine has been busy this morning abusing just about everyone who had anything to do with the decision to cut its feed from the Great Hall in Parliament House and the level of vitriol leaves the politicians for dead.

    Nine’s head of news and current affairs, John Westacott, has described the pulling of the feed from the debate as “a blatant act of political censorship”.

    He’s attacked the Liberal Party for trying to manage the debate in the first place, reiterating the words of Nine presenter, Ray Martin, about the debate belonging to the people and not the Liberal Party.

    However the most extraordinary revelation from Nine this morning is that there was no agreement about the broadcast, either written or verbal. None at all! This contradicts claims by the National Press Club and the Liberal Party director, Brian Loughnane. It makes the statement by Glenn Milne, the vice president of the National Press Club, particularly interesting. Milne told AM this morning that the decision to pull Nine’s feed was justified because the network had broken an agreement.

    “Having entered into an arrangement and an agreement with the parties to accept the terms and conditions and constraints that the parties had agreed on, Nine should have complied with them.”

    Milne also said “When Nine walked away from it and used the worm it breached an agreement it had with the parties not the National Press Club.”

    Perhaps this is why Nine has claimed that “the ABC and the National Press Club conspired to do the bidding of the Liberal Party to present the blandest possible Leaders Debate”.

    The National Press Club’s Chief Executive Officer, Maurice Reilly, was the man designated to make comment. He didn’t return Crikey’s call. He was at a hospital in Canberra all morning as rumours flew around the capital that he’d taken ill. His office assured callers that he was fighting fit and that the Club will issue a statement today at 2pm.

    The Prime Minister denied his office had any involvement this morning. But what about Liberal Party headquarters? Word from the Party’s Director, Brian Loughnane, is a bit confusing. His spokesman, Jim Bonner, told Crikey: “My understanding is that Channel Nine breached the requirement so you’ll have to talk to them.” When asked whether Loughnane authorized, or agreed to, or was consulted about pulling Nine’s feed, Bonner said: “That I don’t know about … the only thing I got from Brian last night is that Channel Nine breached its agreement. I’ll find out and get back to you.” He didn’t.

    However, the Liberal Party must have been consulted because Nine was saying today that Loughnane expressly said not to yank the broadcast.

    So who actually pulled the plug?

    Nine believes it was the National Press Club, either with or without consultation with the Liberal Party, which was responsible for pulling the feed. In any case, the decision to pull the broadcast sounds more like an act of extreme pettiness on the part of the National Press Club than political censorship. Either way, it’s a very stupid way to behave.

  6. Suki Says:
    October 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    I heard Glenn Milne this morning on AM and it seems any old hack can be the vice president of the National Press Club.

  7. joe2 Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Missed that one Suki, sadly.

    Is that seriously how this worm has managed to wriggle off the hook yet again?

  8. Suki Says:
    October 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Yep joe2!

    Worm one- HoWARd. It’s been more than 4 years and still no exit plan for Australian forces in the illegal war in Iraq.

    Worm two- Milne the lush…

  9. weezil Says:
    October 27th, 2007 at 6:44 am

    joe2, I think this is the story to which Suki refers:

    Channel Nine breached worm agreement: Press Club transcript|MP3

Leave a Reply