February 25, 2004
IGNORE THE BLOGGERS!
Further to the Media Watch/Phillip Adams story, Professor Bunyip provides an excellent follow-up, which points us to this comment from Media Watch executive producer Peter McEvoy:
We aren't much concerned with the views of any bloggers, but we do review all the tips we receive (even those that come from bloggers) and assess them on merit.
What a load. Media Watch’s piece on Janet Albrechtsen was entirely driven by blogger Amir Butler, who didn’t even earn a credit during the broadcast. Media Watch later put this on their website:
Our research is based on the work done by Amir Butler of Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee who took the trouble to analyse Albrechtsen's article.
And Media Watch’s treatment of Adams plainly was driven by Bunyip. Maybe Media Watch is conscious of its waning influence; consider this line from host David Marr:
The verb "to albrecht" meaning to lift and twist - entered the language a couple of years ago when we reported columnist Janet Albrechtsen lifting and twisting academic sources to suit her purpose.
It entered the language? Outside of Media Watch, I haven’t heard it used at all. As opposed to fisking, which is now in international use. Extra evidence of Media Watch’s blog-following; another commenter at Ken Parish’s site reports admiringly that not only did Media Watch nail Adams’ journalistic impropriety, the weak, tax-fuelled program “in fact noted an additional transgression in the same column”.
That transgression -- Adams’ messing up a quote from a CIA report -- was first noted here, by reader Hugh W.
Maybe Media Watch should be a blog instead of a television program. They’d be able to cover more stories, and it would be cheaper. It's a win/win!
Posted by Tim Blair at February 25, 2004 02:52 AM"Dowdify" has also entered into common usage. Never heard the term "to albrecht" before. Sounds like a way to lift and twist the phlegm out of your throat.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 25, 2004 at 03:00 AMWhy doesn't Janet Albrechtsen sue for defamation? The mediaweatch claim is clearly actionable. I think damages would be very considerable. Tim, tell her, please!
Posted by: sue at February 25, 2004 at 04:25 AMLike I said on the other thread, look for MW to pound it's audience on this meme. It's all about propaganda, about developing the battlefield. If you can get people to associate your opponent with some negative, you're well on your way to winning the argument.
Posted by: CleverNameHere at February 25, 2004 at 05:41 AMSo David Marr introduces a new verb, 'to albrecht'. Its a shame that there is already a verb matching his own name. Otherwise we could have added one to the lexicon.
With the same meaning of course.
Posted by: Geoffm at February 25, 2004 at 07:35 AMI am still chuckling over the 'Fiskal Responsibility' heading.
Posted by: Paul Dub at February 25, 2004 at 08:13 AMWe aren't much concerned with the views of any bloggers, but we do review all the tips we receive (even those that come from bloggers) and assess them on merit.What a load.
Well, it seems that Media Watch is not concerned with what you or Prof Bunyip think of them (as the commenter you linked to suggests).
Media Watch’s piece on Janet Albrechtsen was entirely driven by blogger Amir Butler
And that doesn't fit in with "we do review all the tips we receive (even those that come from bloggers) and assess them on merit" how?
And Media Watch’s treatment of Adams plainly was driven by Bunyip.
How do you know? Having skewered Albrechtsen for "lifting and twisting", surely they had to do the same to Adams. That Prof Bunyip can spot Adams' journalistic transgressions and rail against them is not proof that nobody else can, nor is it evidence that Prof Bunyip is forcing Media Watch's hand.
The verb "to albrecht" meaning to lift and twist - entered the language a couple of years ago...
David Marr is smoking some serious crack if he thinks "to albrecht" is used anywhere other than in the musty halls of Media Watch.
Extra evidence of Media Watch’s blog-following
Pffft. They have researchers on Media Watch, Tim. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone other than a blog commenter can spot an error in a Philip Adams column during routine fact-checking.
Strewth, enough with the puffing up of bloggerdom self-importance, Tim. Leave a little room for independent thought.
another commenter at Ken Parish’s site reports admiringly that not only did Media Watch nail Adams’ journalistic impropriety, the weak, tax-fuelled program “in fact noted an additional transgression in the same column”.
Well, that comment was mine, but I'm at a loss to explain your admiringly description. Whence comes this passion for irrelevant adjectives?
Pointing out that Media Watch reported not only the incident that Ken Parish railed against, but another incident in the same column hitherto unremarked by Ken, seems more mundane than "admiringly".
That transgression -- Adams’ messing up a quote from a CIA report -- was first noted here, by reader Hugh W.
Well, congrats Hugh W. for first reporting that transgression on your blog Tim, but that's hardly evidence that no one else could have found out the same thing by simple fact-checking.
David Marr is smoking some serious crack
Smoking it isn't what Marr does with "serious crack".
Posted by: superboot at February 25, 2004 at 09:58 AMMea culpa time. Regarding Tim's claim that "... Media Watch’s treatment of Adams plainly was driven by Bunyip", I wrote that:
How do you know? Having skewered Albrechtsen for "lifting and twisting", surely they had to do the same to Adams. That Prof Bunyip can spot Adams' journalistic transgressions and rail against them is not proof that nobody else can, nor is it evidence that Prof Bunyip is forcing Media Watch's hand.
Thinking this was a bit harsh (how would Media Watch have known about Adams' lifting and twisting? sure they can fact check, but what would have alerted them in the first place?), I posted the following question on Media Watch's forum:
I was wondering how Media Watch knew that Philip Adams had "lifted and twisted" in his column.Was it a tip-off from a viewer? From one of the many blogs that regularly criticizes Adams? From a complaint in a letter to the editor? Or did a Media Watch researcher stumble across the "albrechting" independently?
This was the answer I got:
We were alerted by several viewers who emailed us excerpts from Professor Bunyip's blog. He published his analysis of Adams' albrechting of George W Bush, but didn't comment on his albrechting of the CIA report.
So there ya go.
"to albrecht" It's definitely part of the language. I use it all the time.
We're now working on getting "to blair" into the Macquarie dictionary- to relentlessly plug one side (guess which side) of any and every argument, and to take umbrage at those who, with similar relentlessness, blair their own (opposite) arguments.
Academics are currently in dispute as to whether the word owes its roots to Tony or Tim, but the pragmatists amongst us recognise that this is an immaterial distinction.
Mind you, I don't think Tim albrechts. I just think he deserves a verb of his own. (Not to mention a few nouns).
Posted by: Nemesis at February 25, 2004 at 01:05 PMAlbrechting,
that means painting in the style of the marvelous German renaissance artist Albrecht Duerer,
doesn't it?
Nemesis: 'Academics are currently in dispute as to whether the word owes its roots to Tony or Tim ...'
That would be the Which Blair Project.
Posted by: ilibcc at February 25, 2004 at 03:01 PMThanks for clearing things up about "albrechting - to albrect", etc..
When I read the statement that it had entered the language I figured it must only be on Australian TV (which I don't watch) because I had never seen it used in any blog, or by any columnist on the web. I did not question the assertion about its wide-spread use.
These people sound like 'legends in their own minds'.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 25, 2004 at 05:36 PMto Nemesis (v): to continually post a blog merely for the sake of argument even though no one really pays attention to your post or cares what you have to say.
Posted by: Quentin George at February 25, 2004 at 08:00 PMDavid Marr says that right wing people can't have it both ways, that is defending Jane Albrechsten while at the same time attacking Philip Adams. That is bold talk from a man who said that "outrageous 'Albrechting' like this should be a capital offence" on Media Watch when he was dishing dirt on Jane's work. David sure didn't look like a hanging judge when he gave Philip a slap with a warm lettuce last Monday night.
Posted by: Ambrose Doolan at February 25, 2004 at 08:21 PMI can assure you that David Marr has had it both ways.
Posted by: A Sore Transvestite at February 25, 2004 at 11:14 PMWill someone let Nemesis know that Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England, is a liberal? Please use small words and pictures to illustrate that this would put Tim and Tony on opposite "sides".
Posted by: Sortelli at February 26, 2004 at 05:21 AMCut and paste, lift and twist... all's fair in the culture wars blogheads - we are playing by YOUR rules rememeber.
Bliar is just severely pissed that Marr deliberately left out any references to the spleenfest payed out here. "Limelight deprivation syndrome", I think Peter Sostello called it.
Posted by: Miranda Divide at February 26, 2004 at 12:32 PMYou certainly seem to be suffering that syndrome, Miranda. Tell me, is your fifteen minutes of fame being fulfilled by trolling here?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 26, 2004 at 01:50 PMNo, I'm loving the limelight you shine every time you waste your low-life breath abusing me. I thought the rule was ignore the trolls?
But seriously, I only troll where I know I can do the most good. It's nothing to do with me you understand, otherwise i'd tell you my name, wouldn't I.
Posted by: Miranda Divide at February 29, 2004 at 03:08 AMWhy doesn't Janet Albrechtsen sue for defamation? The mediaweatch claim is clearly actionable. I think damages would be very considerable. Tim, tell her, please!
Coz truth is still a defence in this coutry...
Posted by: Burnyerp at March 2, 2004 at 08:53 AM