Friday, September 17, 2004

One for the right wingers.

Which hat was Emma Dawson wearing for this spray in the age. Her ALP hat or the non-partisan OzProspect thinktank hat?
Thinktanks can provide a great service to the country by doing independent research and conducting forums, but media output like this just gives them a bad name. No research, nothing new, just a big partisan spray.
Very IPA but just in the opposite direction. Hey at least OzProspect identifies their financial backers.
Congrats Emma you're on the board for Hack of 2004. The Age gets a vote for running it to.


At 10:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely Hack of 2004 should go to a reporter and not a columnist. The standards applied to opinion piece should surely be very different. The term hack is one worn with pride by some reporters I know. I don't think the people who write for the op-ed pages view themselves quite the same way.

What's the prize by the way?

At 10:44 pm, Blogger HackWatch2004 said...

Fair comment. Dawson's article is obviously an opinion piece and she does announce her ALP membership, but polemics like this hardly do think tanks any credit. If she quoted some academic studies to back up her opinions the article would have been much stronger. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but the distinction between non-partisan thinktank and propaganda unit should be maintained for all concerned.

At 10:50 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take a leaf out of Goatboy's book and point out that The Age takes caps, and should probably be italicised.

Also, the word "to" and the end of the post should be changed to "too", too. That's with two Os. Like the word "tool", but without the L.

The Hack.

At 11:29 pm, Blogger HackWatch2004 said...

Gee Hack,
i should be paying you for the spelling and grammar lessons. Seems like you don't want to discuss any issues though. what do you think of David Uren pumping up the household income figures by ignoring the crucial details that they hadn't been ajusted for inflation? Do you believe thinktanks have become political weapons? Do you think the Herald Sun should have reported the Family first party's connection to the Catch the Fire Ministry?
Stop holding out on me Hack or are you just an English teacher wannabee?

At 10:32 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iain, I note you have now deleted your rant about Jess Healy, in particular your ill-considered accusations about my TSSH piece on her. Good thing, too, because you were on dangerous legal ground, son.

You are in no position to judge anything anyone writes, because you are a pseudo-intellectual who has never sat at the sharp end of a keyboard in a newsroom.

However, I'll buy into your little challenge.

Most thinktanks have aligned themselves to the left or the right since JC played full-back for Jerusalem. Political bias (NB: not "biased", Iain) in thinktanks is nothing new, twat.

Now, economics is not my field of expertise but it would seem you might have a point about David Uren. If you had any credibility, anyway.

As for Family First, their policies show a clear Christian link. Anyone with an ounce of political nous knows "family" is a by-word for "right-wing Christian" in this day and age.

Hope that helps, fuck-knuckle.

Love and kisses,

The Hack

At 1:01 pm, Blogger HackWatch2004 said...

Well Hack, you almost got through a post without petty abuse but couldn't quite manage it.
Yes thinktanks have left or right leanings but this severely reduces their credibility. How will research designed to achieve a certain result benifit public policy decision making?
When members of thinktanks write opinion pieces in mainstream newsapers, without backing up their arguments with credible research (like Dawson did) they merely become propaganda disperses.
IPA members do it all the time, and in my opinion turns that organisation into a laughing stock. Not to mention their refusal to make public their financial backers.
As for the article about Family First, will you acknowledge that ignoring their links to the quite radical Catch the Fire Ministry, with their belief that Muslims have infiltrated the British Parliament is really shoddy journalism.
What would you say if the Herald Sun wrote a story about the CEC and ignored their links to anti-semitic organisation?
Thankyou for acknowledging my point about Uren in your own sledgehammer style.
Big Kiss

At 5:38 pm, Blogger Robert said...

The Greens have a political bias. Does that diminish their credibility?

What matters is that the think tanks are up front about things. They should publish lists of donors, and the party memberships (etc) of their staff.

You've gone off your nut at Emma Dawson, when she made quite clear where her affiliation lies. That ought to be encouraged, not panned.

At 6:44 pm, Blogger HackWatch2004 said...

I did encourage it in the post.

At 8:08 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus, Iain. So if you and all your commenters agree that Emma Dawson's story was an opinion piece, and that her bias was clearly declared, and that most political thinktanks have a clear political bias, are you going to strip Emma Dawson of her Hack of 2004 points?

The Hack.


Post a Comment

<< Home