THE Australian newsletter Crikey is a publication that thinks it is top of the pile. It is always lecturing all and sundry about standards, journalistic and otherwise. <\/p>\n
But when its own shortcomings (and they are legion) are pointed out, one doesn’t even get an acknowledgement. I sent the following missive to the editor about the edition of June 1. No response at all.
\n
\n—————————————————————————<\/p>\n
On many occasions I have put finger to keyboard to write a letter to the editor, pointing out the shocking editorials in your newsletter. But then, I’ve just put it off, due to my own laziness. Today, after reading the last issue, I probably was more annoyed than usual, so I’ve pulled your editorial apart.<\/p>\n
“As Alexander Downer noted today,…”<\/p>\n
If you have descended to the level where you have to quote Lord Downer, then things have gone well below the gutter.<\/p>\n
“…claims we’ve reached a new low in parliamentary behaviour should be treated sceptically.”<\/p>\n
Really? A “new” low? As opposed to an “old” low, I presume? That’s called tautology, in case you were unaware.<\/p>\n
“Every parliament has its bad moments; its undignified, sordid, shambolic or disgraceful moments.”<\/p>\n
Oh boy, if that isn’t stating the bleeding obvious. How about something original for a change?<\/p>\n
“In any event, it’s hard for contemporary observers to judge standards from before the television age, which reshaped political tactics and altered parliamentary behaviour. And not necessarily for the better.”<\/p>\n
Really? How did the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings change things? Politicians have always behaved like grubs. Another untested statement.<\/p>\n
“As Bernard Keane notes today, both the media and politicians face the problem of disengagement by Australians.”<\/p>\n
Really? Lord Keane’s statement is just another opinion, so how can it be quoted as gospel?<\/p>\n
“The general tone of vituperation….”<\/p>\n
How clumsy can you get? “The general vituperative tone” would read so much better.<\/p>\n
“– and childish behaviour of Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne in the now-famous flight for the exits”<\/p>\n
Famous? How did the incident become famous? It has no relevance to anyone outside this country. And it’s famous? Exactly how many cliches do you pack into one editorial?<\/p>\n
” — is unlikely to do anything other than accelerate that disengagement, particularly when the Prime Minister herself is seen by so many voters as untrusworthy.”<\/p>\n
I haven’t heard of untrusworthy. I have heard of untrustworthy. Even the spell-checker in my free text editor catches that kind of f***-up.<\/p>\n
“If the standards of parliamentary behaviour are bad, we’ve also rarely seen a time when the country’s two most important political leaders were regarded so poorly by voters.”<\/p>\n
Is that the way to reinforce a statement? Why doesn’t the writer go back to school and do a course in basic grammar? Anyone with basic education would use “Not only…” to begin that sentence.<\/p>\n
“But both sides know that. However poor their behaviour, voters will still be required to attend the polls at the next election, and compulsory preferential voting will mean that, in all but a small number of seats, their votes will eventually filter through a major party candidate of one kind or another.”<\/p>\n
Wrong again. Nobody is required to vote. One only has to turn up at the polling station and get one’s attendance noted. You can then do what you like with the ballot paper and stuff it in the box. And you are at the forefront of accusing others of getting things wrong. Pot, kettle, black.<\/p>\n
Major party politicians have the game rigged.<\/p>\n
Which game? Politics? Journalism? Badly-written newsletter editorials? After all the screw-ups, this conclusion seems based on nothing more than the writer’s imagination.<\/p>\n
———————————————————————————-<\/p>\n
I doubt there will be any response. When the emperor was told he had no clothes, he just continued on his merry way.
\n
\n