Who will be the next Grog-gate?

Followers of Australian political ’blogs will no doubt be aware of the outing of the beloved Grog’s Gamut by a Newscorp journalist writing for the Australian. I will not link to the article. You’ve probably seen it already and if not, you know how to use the Google. The day after revealing Grog’s identity, James Massola wrote another article defending his decision to do so. This is the classic phase-2 of gutter journalism: make your story the story – make yourself the story.

Massola’s defence is lame.

Jericho blogged as a hobby outside work hours. But he sent literally hundreds of partisan political tweets out, during work hours, many of which were ad hominem attacks on the side of politics he did not agree with.

Is this, of itself, inexcusable? No. But nor is it appropriate. Jericho's decision to "live blog" the Media 140 conference (was it a sick day, a day in lieu, annual leave, did he clear it with his supervisor?) made my mind up.

Following that second article, Grog explained that he had taken a day’s annual leave to attend the Media 140 conference. Massola could have checked this if he was really concerned, but instead chose to feign a principled stand based on a grubby assumption. Massola expressed concern that Grog was influencing public debate because ABC managing director Mark Scott has responded to Grog’s criticism. How does Mr Massola know that Mr Scott was not responding to Grog as a taxpayer, not a public servant? And if Grog should not be influencing public debate, then who should be? I think we know the journalists’ union’s answer to that one.

Despite protestations to the contrary, it’s hard not to form them view that professional journalists felt threatened and chose to strike at Grog’s Achilles heel: the fact that he works for the Australian Public Service – a fact that Grog never hid. As if public servants are not also taxpayers. As if public servants are not also voters. As professionals public servants leave their personal views at the door, but it is clear from the timing of his postings that Grog ’blogged in his own time. It’s also ironic that commenters on his ’blog who accused him of writing on the public dollar, or being compromised in his work, did so anonymously – as did the journalists who responded to his criticism.

The fact is, Mr Massola, I’m less concerned about a public servant writing media criticism in his spare time than I am about journalists who write about ’bloggers as their day job. Was there no real news that day? Did Paris Hilton sleep in?

There’s much more to be said on this issue, but it has already been said far better by many others. Craig Thomler has collated them HERE.

 
I’d like to pursue a slightly different angle. James Massola claims he acted in the public interest. Apart from knowing Grog’s name and department, I don’t know what’s changed. However, I notice that at time of writing, Mr Massola follows 641 people on Twitter, including Grog’s Gamut. I notice also that he has 2695 followers, which leads me to believe that he does not engage in reciprocal following and therefore chooses who he follows. Furthermore, I notice quite a few people he follows are anonymous and/or fake characters. Whether he follows these people for professional reasons, to see what these faceless influencers are up to, or just for fun, I am not in a position to guess. However, if we accept that it is in the public interest to reveal the identities of anonymous or pseudonymous commentators, then I shall expect a series of exposés. Otherwise, we will have to wonder if Massola and The Australian were motivated more by vindictiveness.

In the public interest, here are the other anonymous and/or fake characters Mr Massola follows, and their Twitter bios.... or at least the ones that I’m aware of...

thefirstbloke
Fake Tim Mathieson
Australia's First First Bloke. Father. Ex property agent. Hairdresser. Lover of Levi jeans, marble interiors & red-headed Prime Ministers.

English50cent
Queen's English 50c
A translation service for English-speaking 50cent fans.

AussieTeaParty
Peter Lalor
(no Bio)

Austeaparty
Austeaparty
(no bio)

staffertweets
EatPolitics
Just another staffer

JacktheInsider
JacktheInsider
(no bio)
(This person writes for The Australian. Public interest?)

theboatphone
The Boatphone
(no bio)

GhostWhoVotes
GhostWhoVotes
Australian Political Observer
(This account was an anonymous source of polling data that would be leaked onto Twitter the night before publication. Public interest?)

fakeburgerman
Not John Bergin
Not the Director of Digital News, Sky News Australia

TheElectionTrol
The election Troll
Born under a bridge but found a home at Parliament House in Canberra!

vivnunis
vivnunis
(no bio)

DeathStarPR
Death Star PR
The Galactic Empire has been getting a bad rap recently. We're here to set the record straight.
(Make your own joke.)

piratepartyau
Pirate Party AU
Pirate Party Australia
(The party is real and its website lists the authoriser's name and address, but many posted on the website are submitted by "anonymous.")

HonMrSpeaker
Harry
I was empty chair with a mind of it's own. Now Harry is back. I tweet during #QT. Dislike P.O.Os, Dixers - dislike for manager of opposition business

ceoSteveJobs
Steve Jobs
I don't care what you think of me. You care what I think of you. Of course this is a parody account.

littlemissscifi
Little Miss SciFi
My radio is my heart. We live as one two ways at once.

FriendsoftheABC
Friends of the ABC
Australian democracy and local culture depend on the survival of a healthy independent public broadcaster. FABC represents the public's interest in the ABC.
(A worthy cause for sure, and their board is listed on their website, but the articles do not have by-lines)

BronwynBishopMP
Bronwyn Bishop
Member for Mackellar
(It's my understanding that this is a fake account, although it's a very dry one and anyone could be forgiven for thinking it's real)

SenatorJoyce
Barnaby Joyce
Future Minister of Finance, son. Try to keep up.

JohnHowardAC
Fake John Howard
Prime Ministers were better in my day.

Pollytics
Possum Comitatus
The snarky polling marsupial and Crikey blogger. Doesn't play well with others.
(UPDATE: I’m told that Pollytics is Scott Steel and that’s been known for a while. Thanks Matthew.)

Penny_Wong
Fake Penny Wong
Minister for everything Garrett wants and can't have

FakeFielding
Fake Steve Fielding
God's representative in Parliament

andrewbolt
Fake Andrew Bolt
Blogger. Social commentator. Broadcaster. Great in bed. This is the account the real Andrew Bolt tried to shut down.
(The original fake Andrew Bolt has done interviews, so somebody knows who he is.)

and of course,
GrogsGamut
Greg
Blogger on politics, movies, books and sport.
(I think he only changed his name to Greg since the outing, but I could be wrong about that)

I don’t suggest this is a complete list. If anyone knows of any I missed, please let me know. I look forward to the public interest being served by outing all of these characters. One a week should make a nice series.

Lessons to be taken from Terry Jones

No, not the bloke from Monty Python, the crazy guy from Florida who wants to burn a Quran.

As a ‘pastor,’ he claims to speak for Christianity. Most people understand that he does not. This is reassuring. If people are sophisticated enough to understand that a handful of crazy people do not speak for Christianity, even if they claim to, then it means that people might also understand that a handful of maniacs do not represent Islam, even if they claim to.

Equally, if Christians can’t or won’t distinguish between mainstream Muslims and crazy extremists who claim to defend Islam, then how can they expect Muslims to distinguish between mainstream Christians and crazy extremists who claim to defend Christianity?
You get what you give.

There was some relief expressed today when the crazy guy was reported to have cancelled his book-burning after claiming to have secured an agreement to relocate the not-really-a-mosque at not-really-ground-zero. Although the claim has been denied by both sides, the suggestion should have been met with outrage, not relief. Since when does America give in to idle threats from religious nuts? I thought that was called appeasement and that appeasement was a bad thing.

As for Donald Trump, if I offered him market value plus 25% for Trump Towers, should he sell even if he is happy there and doesn’t want to move?

Spits and Dummies – various post-election observations

What I love about election night is that it’s really the only night when anyone in politics tells the truth.

One such example was Maxine McKew’s assessment of what went wrong for Labor. She was spot on in her assessment that Labor’s problems “go back to last year when we never quite claimed victory over the global financial crisis.” It’s absolutely correct that Labor did a pathetic job of selling their achievements. But for her honesty, McKew was accused in the media of having a dummy-spit similar to Cheryl Kernot in 1998 when she effectively complained that she wasn’t given a safe enough seat to run in. There is obviously no analogy because McKew has said earlier in the interview that she had asked to stand in a marginal seat.

If you wanted to see a real dummy-spit, you had to tune into Insiders this morning, where Bill Shorten shot Barrie Cassidy a filthy look for suggestion that “if it does come to that sort of constitutional crisis Bill Shorten just by the way, your mother-in-law, the Governor-General, would have to make the call.”
Shorten responded with barely concealed fury, “Oh I assume that’s a bit of humour to finish the interview.”

He did go on to give the right answer, which is, “In terms of the Governor-General's role she will carry out her role I’m sure,” but added, “In terms of any other point that you may be humorously alluding to I’m not going to impugn that office.”

This is why Bill Shorten should not be allowed back near a campaign any time soon. If a similar question had been put to either Rudd or Gillard, they would have either given the straight answer or prefaced it with something like, “That’s a good question and I’m glad you asked it because it gives me the opportunity to address these concerns.” Whether Cassidy was being cheeky or not, the fact is that Quentin Bryce is now in the most uncomfortable position any Governor General has been in since John Kerr in 1975. It neither impugns the office nor questions the Governor General’s integrity to point out that having her son-in-law as a key player in the ALP can only increase that discomfort.


 
What will not be said by any of the paid commentators is that this election didn’t just see a rejection of both major parties, but also of the major media players. By far the best analysis was by independent writers, mostly on ’blogs.


 
Finally, as both parties try to form government, the Liberal party must stop talking about having the “moral right.”
It’s called enterprise bargaining, arseholes! Now you know how it feels.

So it's come to this,

After weeks of both parties backpedaling on stated principles and dodging real debate, it's come down to who can stay up the longest versus who buys the blokiest drink.

It has disappointed me to see some of those who rightfully bemoan the lack of policy discussion in this campaign, now jumping on the "Abbott bought a poofter drink," bandwagon.  I don't have much to say about Tony Abbott that's complimentary, but I will say that I don't give a flying whether he or Gillard drink tequila slammers or Shirley Temples, it's got nothing to do with their policies or abilities.

Legitimate Questions for Sarah Palin

Sarah, I read with interest your questions for the president. Now I have some for you.

You believe in the US constitution, don't you? You believe in people's freedom to worship as they see fit? If so, what's the problem?

You believe in small government, right? You believe that big government should get out of people's lives, don't you? If so, then what business does the president have in telling anyone what they should build where?

You make an interesting point that having the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Would you extend the same principle to – oh, let's say – gun control as well? Or would that be an attack on freedom and a trashing of the constitution? How can you try to have it both ways?

And you believe in the free market don't you? So if you object to the owners' plans for the site, why not just outbid them? Why not let the market decide?

In short, how can you justify a position on this issue that contradicts your positions on just about everything else?

I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

- Bill

How Not to Jump the Queue

I have tried to keep a fairly broad point of view for the political and social commentary that I post here.  However, on the issue of boat people and so-called illegal immigration, I feel compelled to share a personal story.

My wife is American.  She is currently in the US and we are going through the visa application process.  It will take up to six months or more before we get an answer on that.  If you think it’s hard being away from each other for so long, you’re damn right.  Thank God for the internet!

There were a number of ways we could have gone about it.  She could have come in on a tourist visa and then gotten a bridging visa while we applied for the partner visa here.  That would have been perfectly legal, but we felt it would be dishonest for her to enter the country on a tourist visa when we both know we have every intention of her staying for good if at all possible.  So instead, we did what we felt was right by having her apply for a partner visa while in her home country.

Let me be clear on one thing: we would dearly love to cut the process short.  We wish we could just fast-forward to when it’s all been done.  But do you know one option we never considered?  We never considered having L make her way to Asia, get onto a rickety boat and risk her life bobbing along the Indian ocean for a couple of months in the hope that she might wash up on the coast of Western Australia.  Not once did we look at all the ‘queue-jumpers’ and think, “Hey, why don’t we try that?”

So to suggest that anyone would try that – with or without people-smugglers – if they weren’t desperate and had better options, really defies all logic. 

I don’t know of anyone whose life has been adversely affected by boat arrivals, but perhaps that says more about the circles I move in, so if you do, please educate me.  Obviously we can’t have a complete open-door policy or it will become an opportunity for real queue-jumpers, but the debate as it is framed right now is bullshit.

Both parties have scrambled to appeal to people’s lowest instincts and are proposing cuts in immigration.  I’ll tell you this much: if this beat-up of an issue makes things any harder than they already are for my wife and me, then I’m going to blame a few people, and I don’t mean the ones on the boats.

How I Vote - for those who wonder, and those who think they know....

In the course of some Twitter comments and discussions, more than a couple of people have suggested or implied that I am a one-eyed Labor supporter. In fairness, I can see why some might think so if they take certain comments in isolation, just as some might leap to the same conclusion from certain posts here. Allow me to address such assumptions....

I'm not going to tell you how I vote, but I'll tell you this much:
I voted for the first time in the 1990 federal election. Since then, in state and federal elections, upper and lower house, I have voted Labor, I have voted Liberal, I have voted Democrat, I have voted National and I have voted independent. I don't think I've ever voted according to the card, and I've never voted for the same party in both the House and Senate. Although I haven't moved in that time, the electoral boundaries have, so the electorates I've lived in have vacillated between marginal Labor, blue-ribbon National and marginal Liberal.

I'm a swinging voter because I'd be a damn fool not to be. Professional pundits and former prime ministers have told us that this election will be won or lost in marginal electorates. No shit, Sherlock? Next they'll be telling us it's the swinging voters in those electorates who will make the difference. Voting out of habit or tradition means parties and candidates never have to earn your vote. Privately, parties despise swinging voters. They regard them as flaky and disloyal. They don't have to impress habitual voters; all they have to do is not be the other side.

This is why I have a profound disagreement with those who say it would create a healthier democracy if we had voluntary voting. Their reasoning is that parties would then have to inspire people to get out and vote if they wanted to win. I think it would be the opposite. I think both parties would benefit from voter apathy because a party has nothing to fear from people who don't vote for them; they're only worried about people who would vote against them.

Sometimes I vote according to who I want, sometimes I vote according to who I don't want. You don't have to look for someone to vote for. No matter how uninspiring the choices are, there's always a least worst. There are plenty of times when my last preference has been chosen before my first.

That's how I choose at any election. It will be interesting to see if people still assume I'm a Labor man when the state election comes around later this year.