Just a simple question: are public figures fair game? I mean, a prominent media personality, for instance who trades on a marketable personality, but more particularly, a recognisable political platform?
What I’m on about is a Sky News presenter who likes to portray himself as a Deplorable, yet repeatedly tells us, no, pointedly tells us that he supports SSM (a campaign generated by the Left) and yet finds some of their campaign tactics distasteful. I mean, really!
This is the same presenter who periodically enjoys calling himself a ‘bogan’, wears his support for V8s and Mount Panorama racing on his sleeve and yet seems unaware that he too can ooze political correctness when it suits him.
There were two very recent demonstrations of rank hypocrisy on the part of Paul Murray that caused an unexpected boil over on my part. I don’t often let fly with a string of expletives, even when Andrew Bolt lapses into a bit of confected outrage, with regard to his own expressions of political correctness. But when Murray repeated his oft-contrived mantra of ‘I’m on the Trump train’, and then immediately followed with a classic bit of Democrat inspired political assassination, I simply had to explode. I mean it’d be thoroughly unnatural for me to remain shtum. Couldn’t do it could I?
I’m going to give you two examples from the same unfortunate night, the first being the saga surrounding Michaelia Cash, the Turnbull employment minister. The big story ought to have been about the AWU slush fund used to help Bill Shorten win the seat of Maribyrnong (somewhere in the Republic of Victoria) and the AWU funds used to funnel members money into GetUp coffers.
Now forget the inconvenient fact that Australian Federal Police raided the AWU officers because there was a reasonable concern that some of their officials just might shred some of the crucial documents , which might have assisted the Registered Organisations Commission, with their enquiries into possible union corruption .
What has not been clearly pointed out by the MSM was that the Australian Federal Police were only involved at all because the AWU refused to release the relevant documents covering the period when the donations were made, back in 2006 . . . by Jove, I think it was when Bill Shorten was secretary of the same organisation.
Now, here’s the problem: I would have enjoyed a bucket load of confected outrage related to union-bashing . . . I would have found that riveting. But making it a story about the media having been tipped off before the police arrived defuses the main story, but more than this, it plays ever so neatly into the Labor Party’s agenda.
I can understand Fairfax engaging in such duplicity, the same with the ABC, but the Paul Murray and the Andrew Bolt shows? Give me a break.
The fact that Michaelia Cash denied any knowledge of the tip off, indeed refuted the Buzzfeed accusation that the leak had come from her office, ought to have been accepted as being a genuine error. In responding to the Buzzfeed accusations, she made further inquiries and found that one of her staffers had indeed leaked the information. Simple. End of story. This should in no way have reflected on her. Had she indeed known prior to making her initial statements to the senate, she would have been guilty of a far more serious charge of deliberately misleading parliament: a sackable offence, so I’m inclined to believe she is not in fact that stupid. So, something else is going on here.
If Paul Murray really wanted to ‘shoot the messenger’ he could have enquired as to why the staffer saw fit to tip off the media. Was he paid to do so by the AWU, or by Labor, or worst still by GetUp itself? Was he in fact a Labor plant, or had he, subsequent to his employment, by Michaelia been ‘turned’. Now there’s a conspiracy theory and a half, and that would have been far more interesting than ‘let’s get Michaelia’ regurgitation.
As for the ‘Trump train’ bit of hypocrisy: the Jeff Flake and Bob Corker resignation speeches ought not to be seen as reflecting badly on Trump, despite the content of their speeches. One has to go beyond the way these were reported on CNN, MSNBC and The Guardian, for instance, and why Paul Murray should have latched onto those versions rather than the pro Trump Breitbart interpretation, which points out that the Tennessee and Arizona a snowball’s chance in hell of being re-elected; this in itself due to work behind the scene by Steve Bannon (who seeks to rebalance both the House and the Senate with pro Trump agenda politicians, if only to get things done. Bannon was himself assisted by the rallying calls of the very influential evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty Universtity in Lynchburg, Virginia. Falwell had been calling for and evangelical ‘army’ to rise up against the ‘fake’ Republicans determined to sabotage the Trump agenda. Instead Murray tell us Trump is in deep trouble . . . ‘but don’t get me wrong, I’m still on the Trump train’.
The Flake, Corker speeches were predictable, going by their previous intransigence, and the fact that they reflected both Republican and Democrat establishment disdain for a president seen as ‘uncouth’, as being responsible for the ‘disrepair and destructiveness of our politics’ and the ‘indecency of our discourse’, when the overwhelming evidence points instead to the destructiveness and utter divisiveness coming from the forces opposed to Trump, like AntiFa and BLM.
Trump is not in the ‘deep trouble’, as Murray tells us, based on the speeches of a couple of neo conservatives , openly declaring themselves to be opposed to the president.
The fact that Trump stands up to Kim Jong Un in his own inimitable, tweety way, in no way indicates that the president is pushing us headlong towards WWIII, as suggested by the 83 year old Bob Corker. He would have been better served by pointing out how Obama and previous administration had laid the groundwork for disaster through its policies of craven appeasement. Trump has been the only president with the fortitude to stand up to a tyrant. But all this has somehow escaped our ‘Trump train’ man.
I became a subscriber to Fox because I vowed not to watch ABC ever again, because I had scant regard for the establishment stance of all our other free to air channels, because I see as the MSM as having been thoroughly infiltrated by the left wing ideology that permeates the various schools of media and communication, here in Australia. In a sense I can handle the bias of the MSM, because of its very transparency, but I saw Sky as genuine alternative media, almost as much as Breitbart and Blabberbuzz coming out of the US. It seems I was sorely mistaken.