Backflip Blair
The right wing’s attacks on the ABC are making a big deal of Max Uechtritz’s (entirely accurate) comment to a media conference that “We now know for certain that only three things in life are certain — death, taxes and the fact the military are lying bastards.”
Take Tim Blair’s remark:
It was a mere throwaway line, Max insists, but the Bunyip’s powerful foreclaws have dug up the non-throwaway context in which Max’s remark was made.
So it wasn’t just a throwaway line. Uechtritz is a lying bastard.
Or is he? Today’s column in the Australian suggests that Blair has changed his tune:
It was a throwaway line, Uechtritz now insists, and, to be fair, it probably was. Alston, who this week published a dossier of the ABC’s bias during the war, is making too much of the implications he thinks are revealed by Uechtritz’s tough-guy remark.
What gives?
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. Anyone who thinks the military never lie, stretch, distort or otherwise abuse the truth is an idiot.
UPDATE: Uechtritz’s response to the whole debate is excellent. His conclusion:
As US Secretary of State Colin Powell has pointed out: “The most effective means of ensuring the government’s accountability to the people is an aggressive, free, challenging, untrusting press.”
It is the media’s role to question what the military and their political masters say, to look at both sides, to seek the truth. At times that will inevitably make people from both sides a little uncomfortable.
It’s called democracy.
Not a backflip. A reconsideration. We conservatives are able to reconsider things, you know.
Semantics…
but when socialists ‘reconsider things’ it’s labelled as another commie backflip. Talk about hypocritical.
Rob, he’s right: he’s reconsidered the point, and decided he was wrong. In his column, he’s taking the point of view that he now considers the right one. It’s not (necessarily) backflipping: it’s being able to admit you made a mistake, and correcting it. Which is not to say that Niall is incorrect: this applies, or *should* apply, to both sides of the spectrum.
That said: *will* Tim be admitting he made a mistake, and retracting his initial comments (like he did re MW, making us all so proud)?
The problem with blogging is that people do nor do enough research before making assertions.
Timbo I believe after first making the accusation then rechecked his facts and maybe even found out about Big Max and realised he was wrong and thus changed his mind.
Fine but to be quite honest the Alston allegations merely show he is a hopeless operator and someone else should be given Communications.
So I’ve moved from stating that the comment was made in a “non-throwaway context” to stating a day later that “to be fair, it probably was” a throwaway line.
Wow. Bad me. Go tell David Marr.
In his so called “excellent” response, Uechtritz says
“It is the media’s role to question what the military and their political masters say, to look at both sides, to seek the truth.”
And thats absolutely true, but as far out as it sounds it could be said that it’s also the media’s role to actually REPORT that truth when they find it, not to edit out parts of that truth that doesn’t suit their particular political bent, or to embellish parts that do, and thates the issue here, journalists not providing the facts as they stand, but as they want them to appear. For some, the art in their profession is to get their opinion across whilst making it appear to be simple fact.
Uechtritz can try and pretend that its about journalistic independence and freedom all he wants but the facts are clear, mainstream media outlets have in a lot of cases become more about journalists opinions that being about pure facts. To a certain extent that’s the way its always been (and probably always will be) but people like Uechtritz can hardly complain when someone points out instances where journo’s have become so blase and arrogant that they apparently don’t even feel the need to disguise their bias, in fact if he was so keen to see “both sides” and “to seek out the truth” then a report (no matter how petty)that apparently shows instances of just the opposite should be welcomed.
But the report really doesn’t show any bias. Alston wants the ABC to swallow American (and British and Australian) lies wholesale, without raising questions, and Uechtritz is dead right to reject his view.
“raising questions” in this situation, (at least for most journo’s) would mean investigating whatever claims and statements the U.S, British and Australians made, its ludicrous to suggest that Alston would try to stop investigative reporting (even if he wanted to) and there’s certainly nothing in this report to suggest that that is what he’s doing.
Most people on both sides of the spectrum seem to agree that at best the points raised in the report were examples of sloppy reporting, and not legitimate investigative reporting thats been unfairly repressed.