Piers "Logical Gymnast" Ackerman

Piers Ackerman is a fantastic logical gymnast. In his column of June 21st, he makes a serious effort to spin the Petro Georgiou & Co. affair in a way that makes Howard out to be a hero and the dissenting MP’s blundering idiots. Let’s have a look…

PETRO Georgiou, the Liberal Party's outspoken immigration activist may have won the (bleeding) hearts of a handful of doctors' wives in his electorate with his refugee campaign – but that's about all.

Ackerman wastes no time in getting straight to what he does best – ad hominem attacks against those he disagrees with. “Bleeding hearts”, “doctors’ wives” and of course Georgiou is an “activist”. Remember, when right wing columnists like Ackerman use the word “activist”, they don’t mean “a person actively engaged in trying to make political social change”. When they use “activist”, they mean “an agitator disrupting social harmony” – it carries a negative connotation. Also notice ad populum gets a run in the first sentence, in that he suggests it is a mere “handful” of “doctors’ wives” who approve of the actions of Georgiou & Co. Piers thinks that the changes to migration policy are strongly opposed by a majority of Australian citizens, and that’s good enough for him. All those “bleeding hearts” should just shut up and get with the program.

Ackerman further displays his appreciation for the ad hominem method of argument with this:

Feisty Sophie Panopoulos, the very successful Victorian MP, quite accurately described the Georgiou push as akin to political terrorism, whatever some of the wets in the community may think. Any attempt to hold a government hostage to the wishes of four or five backbenchers is a kind of political terrorism, and it would be difficult to find a more apt description of the stunt…

Hypothetical: Labor is in power. Backbenchers demand change to current Labor policy on, let’s say, industrial relations. Labor MP brands said backbenchers as “political terrorists”. Would Piers Ackerman agree that the Labor MP’s comments were “accurate”? Would he agree that “it would be difficult to find a more apt description” of the backbenchers’ actions? Would he call those in the community who disagreed with such language “wets”? You bet your nelly he wouldn’t.

Ackerman laments that “the Georgiou stunt did have an immediate and unpleasant fallout.” He cites the incident involving numerous Chinese asylum seekers at Villawood and…

…wannabe political refugee Chen Yonglin was moved yet again to call yet another press conference and cash in on his growing notoriety

This is a fantastic example of the hypocrisy which flows from conservatives like Ackerman – “We feel for those who suffer under authoritarian communist regimes. Except of course those who seek asylum in Australia after defecting and openly criticising authoritarian communist regimes.”

As the amendments to be introduced will usher in a greater degree of flexibility for illegal entrants with children, it may now be only a matter of time before renewed attempts are made by people smugglers to find new cargoes to bring down from Indonesia.

Hang on Piers, I thought the primary goal of the government’s immigration policy was to “stop the boats”. Your article suggests that the changes were a dismal failure for Georgiou because mandatory detention (the “deterrent” which even John Howard has conceded is “regrettable”) still exists, and now your prophesising that the changes will lead to the return of boatloads of asylum seekers flooding Australia’s shores? Make up your mind.

The Government may have accommodated Mr Georgiou but there is no prospect of accommodating the more feral advocates for illegal entrants.
They are still determined to fight on for wannabe refugees to be released into the community without any restrictions.

“Feral advocates”, “wannabe refugees” -- more ad-hominem. Tell me Piers, do you enjoy writing columns appealing to the lowest common denominator? And why do you insist on putting words into the mouths of these “feral advocates”? Those who oppose the current policy wish to see asylum seekers who arrive by boat treated in the same fashion as those who arrive by air. They are also aware of and accept the need for a brief period of detention such that health and security risks can be carried out.

Mr Howard has even managed to turn what some saw as a serious threat to his Government into a public relations triumph by calling for other dissenters within the party to present their views for examination.
In opening up the debate in this manner, he gives the lie to those who claim he has strayed from the liberal guidelines of the longest-serving Liberal prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies.
Sticking it to his critics, Mr Howard has now publicly embraced the notion of the Liberal Party as the broad church its founders planned…

OK, so Howard’s a legend for paying lip service to the “broad church” philosophy of the Liberal party, but those who DO present their views for examination should be prepared to wear the label of “political terrorist”?

Conclusion: Article contains zero argumentative value, but is great for a laugh.

Colebatch has it bad for Flint

In Saturday’s West Australian, Hal Colebatch provided a glowing review of Malice in Media Land, David Flint’s attempt to unmask what he terms “the left-wing media elite”. Mr Flint’s arguments on this issue have been canvassed before, so I won’t spend much time looking at them, but I did find some parts of the article interesting.

For example:

Flint also looks at the succession of media “feeding frenzies” in the Hollingworth, Kirby and Wayne Carey and Cardinal Pell affairs. Flint says he found an impression created among some people that Hollingworth (who at worst had been naive and inept in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by Anglican priests, and in handling the media subsequently), was himself guilty of some sort of sexual crimes.

(My emphasis)

Now remember, Flint’s beef is with “the media elite” which he pretty much defines as the Fairfax broadsheets and the ABC. Does he seriously suggest it was these media outlets alone which initiated and took part in this “feeding frenzy”? What were the Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Advertiser and The Courier Mail covering during all this -- the human rights situation in China? The Hollingworth saga was a classic “scandal” – and “the people’s media” loved every moment of it.

It continues…

Wayne Carey’s escapades were private business.

Yes David, I’m sure that the News Ltd tabloids didn’t want to hear about that – no money to be made with headlines about “Shock affairs” and the like.

Here Flint touches on a matter which could be taken further. He writes: “The allegations against Justice Kirby soon collapsed because the Comcar records (Senator Hefferman (sic) tendered as proof turned out, on the most cursory investigation, to be a fabrication.” But why was this matter of “fabrication” apparently never taken further? There seems to have been a nasty plot against Kirby, Hefferman (sic), or both by persons who remain unknown and un-investigated.

How exactly, could this have been a nasty plot against Bill Heffernan? The fact of the matter is, Heffernan, under parliamentary privilege, accused a high court judge of hiring underage prostitutes (“…regularly trawled for rough trade at the Darlinghurst Wall…” and “…played out his fantasies on a fee-for-service arrangement.”) while using forgeries to back it up. Heffernan’s speech was revealed for what it was – a homophobic diatribe – followed with the standard Howard response in the light of embarrassing revelations – “The Senator in question enjoys both my affection and friendship”. Sorry David, but that’s big news.

Then this:

Flint himself was persecuted because he was a monarchist, with roles in other socially conservative groups, such as being president of the Australian National Federation of the English-Speaking Union.

No examples of this persecution are provided. I suspect someone may have countered Flint’s arguments against the republic – which of course amounts to persecution “because he was a monarchist”.

Back to the “elite media”:

A group of commentators do suffer from group-think and a shared set of prejudices and assumptions. But they are subject now to robust confrontation by Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair and others.

Yes of course. Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair, Greg Sheridan, Janet Albretchsen, Fran Devine, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson and the rest NEVER sing from the same hymn sheet. They most certainly don’t have a shared set of prejudices and assumptions - put these people together and you have a most fascinating and diverse range of opinions on any conceivable subject. I also like the way that it is “now” that the media elite are confronted – as if all of these commentators are new on the scene – and by golly those Howard hating group thinkers had better watch out coz there’s some new kidz on the block!

Further, two Australian Federal elections and, even more obviously, the republican referendum, have shown the commentariat’s power to actually decide outcomes is far less than its members may like to think.

Translation: We won the last election! Hooray! You were wrong – we’re the best! The war was right! The republic was wrong! Howard didn’t lie! People want to privatise Telstra! Hooray!

Colebatch brings his article to a close:

…it is a real pleasure to read the thoughts and observations of learned,
civilised and ethical man, set out in a beautiful prose style.

Need some tissues Hal?