September 29, 2004

APOLITICAL ANTONY

Sydney Morning Herald bandwidth filler Antony Loewenstein isnít happy about Alan Anderson joining the SMHís online team:

He's a member of the Liberal Party in the Victorian branch. His coverage in "no way purports to represent the views of the Party." That's OK, then. Balance is assured. All bases are covered.

His personal blog supports Fox News and Israel's targeted assassinations. For the record, I am not a member of any political party or group.

Give me a break, Antony. If Not Happy John isnít a political group, what the hell is it? A jazzercise class? Meanwhile Margo Kingston, the unhappiest little Not Happy Johnster of them all, is still bravely trying rescue Australia:

I tell ya, if Howard wins - and even if he doesn't - we've got to transform this site into an Australian moveon to protect what's left of our democracy.

But Margo -- if Howard wins, democracy will be dead! There wonít be anything left to protect! Maybe George Soros can help.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 29, 2004 04:50 PM
Comments

Anderson's blog explicitly states that he is biased, but also that he is not pretending to be objective.

Clearly, this is what Loewenstein and Kingston cannot handle and find so abhorrent about "The Razor": honesty and integrity in journalism.

Posted by: George at September 29, 2004 at 05:12 PM

So let me get this straight:

If you are obviously a partisan for the re-election of Howard: Bugger off!

If you are obviously a partisan against Howard at all costs: Welcome aboard!

SMH: Fair and Balanced.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 29, 2004 at 05:17 PM

Its typical of the SMH left, they don't want anyone exposing their hysterical ravings to any scrutiny!

Poor little Antony is appalled that a right winger might actually get a forum in the sheltered workshop that is the SMH.

He is a lightweight that proports to cut through the spin, however a cursory review of his blog shows that its just a polite version of the Margit's.

Who'd have thought that a weblogger paid for by the SMH would have partisan views of either political hue.

Posted by: Nuffy at September 29, 2004 at 05:22 PM

I presume you know that George Soros will be opening his own blog later this week. He invites you to send in your comments and questions. Yes that's right, he invited sooo - go do it.

Via Ace of Spades

Posted by: Stan at September 29, 2004 at 05:39 PM

As if I needed another reason to vote for Howard. Watching Margo go absolutely bonkers would be the icing on the cake.

Posted by: Rob at September 29, 2004 at 06:47 PM

Well said George.

Whats worse? a correspondant that openly admits bias, and attempts balance or one that denies any bias and is, in every sense of the word, unbalanced?

Posted by: nic at September 29, 2004 at 07:28 PM

Yeah, the SMH is so very biased.

Guess that explains Anderson, Devine and Henderson never having any opinion pieces published

Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2004 at 07:50 PM

i cant believe that margo hasnt worked out that antony 'loewenSTEIN' is actually part of the neo-con jewish 'protocol of the elders' zionist conspiracy, and that he's successfully infiltrated her organisation. how ironic is that?

Posted by: rosceo at September 29, 2004 at 08:21 PM

What a lame attack. Alan is completely up front about his relationship to the Liberal Party on the blog (more so than when he writes letters to the editor), so there's no problem. People are free to make their own decisions about his partisanship. In my experience, he's quite happy to get stuck into the Libs when he disagrees with them. I'm sure that will continue.

Posted by: Robert at September 29, 2004 at 08:43 PM

Actually Andy,

Anderson's comments are not published, rather linked to a sub-site. If we are to look at your list and compare it to:

Kingston, Horin, Manne, Carlton, Ramsey, Summers, et al, not to mention the letters editor are hardly centrists.

Its funny how one or two right wing journalists inspire such a reaction from the left, I'm not sure that they can handle the truth or the fact that there is dissent.

Posted by: nic at September 29, 2004 at 08:44 PM

"Not Happy John" Isn't that a gay pick up joint?

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 at 08:56 PM

"Not Happy John" Isn't that a gay pick up joint?

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 at 08:57 PM

"Not Happy John" Isn't that a gay pick up joint?

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 at 08:58 PM

One quick point on the SMH. I can only agree its not politically balanced. In fact a lot of us don't bother with it anymore (thank goodness for sites like this!). On the other hand is this so bad? After all, unlike the genuinely nasty ABC, its a commercial operation. If you take a look at its online polls you'll note that, consistently, its not representative of the broader population. Its readership (buyers) are about 1 SD to the left of the Australian median in politcal view.

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 at 09:12 PM

Oh, I agree Jim. The SMH can make whatever decisions it wants on who it hires.

It's hired Alan. Antony, on the other hand, is merely another employee of Fairfax complaining because the newspaper thinks its good business sense to at least make an attempt to cover all political bases.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 29, 2004 at 09:16 PM

Great evidence Tim and Alan. Never lt it be forgotten. Antony Loewenstein IS a member of a undoubtedly left wing group. Bad call Antony. Thats going to dog your career mate!

Posted by: Steve at September 29, 2004 at 09:39 PM

That's it? I came here looking for a reasoned coputer-point to the liberal media and THIS IS IT? Ok, just for me can someone explain what is biased about Antony's views?

Posted by: shady at September 29, 2004 at 10:29 PM

That's it? I came here looking for a reasoned counter-point to the liberal media and THIS IS IT? Ok, just for me can someone explain what is biased about Antony's views?

Posted by: shady at September 29, 2004 at 10:30 PM

Ok, just for me can someone explain what is biased about Antony's views?

So you think someone who co-authors a Howard-bashing book is a non partisan figure in the upcoming election?

Posted by: Quentin George at September 29, 2004 at 10:37 PM

Since Mark Latham had his wife introduce him at his campaign launch yesterday, and since he brought his mother up on stage afterwards, all bets are off.

Clearly, poor old cry-baby Latham no longer feels compelled to have the media "lay off his family".

His actions yesterday have firmly placed them at the front and centre of his campaign. He used them shamelessly to further his political objectives. They and his past are now fair game. Let the fun begin.

Posted by: George at September 30, 2004 at 01:41 AM

Give me a break, Antony. If Not Happy John isnít a political group, what the hell is it? A jazzercise class?

One of the most appalling moments in Michael Moore's book Dude, where's my country is when he advocates Oprah Winfrey for president:

C'mon! She'd have us up every morning doing jazzercises!

And just when you think it's a sick joke, he hits you with this:

I'm serious. We need to start thinking outside the square.

Ladies and gentlemen: Michael Moore's version of utopia is - a dictatorial regime in which the populace is kept in thrall by means of jazzercise. O the horror!

Posted by: TimT at September 30, 2004 at 10:54 AM

ALan Anderson has had a number of opinion pieces published in recent weeks.

And, if we want to discuss bias, lets at least bring up the Daily Tele, which is just a Liberal party cheer sheet, eg Piers Ackerman, Malcom Farr etc etc. Can't really think of one lefty on the paper. Couple of those pesky center types but no lefties.

Or is bias only ok if you agree with it?

Posted by: Andy at September 30, 2004 at 11:18 AM

Hi Andy,
As far as i'm concerned, I can accept bias when it's honestly declared.
Most newspaper columnists and journalists (left or right, to use the old fashioned terms) state their biased opinions as fact; with Anderson, we know he's seeing things through "right-wing eyes". The same with Piers Akerman (i only stated reading him because he's mentioned in one or two Kinky Friedman books).
On the other hand, people like Kingston and Lowenstein declare a dislike of all kinds of 'big politics", but in reality run anti-howard campaigns and agendas.

Posted by: martin at October 1, 2004 at 05:48 PM