Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

Remove this Banner Ad

Just imagine how the shills in the Murdoch press and Sky News would react if the A-G did just that rather than turning up at press conferences to respond to their vapid ignorance and self obsessed grandstanding.

As this excellent article on the latest Dutton directed soap opera points out - facts and substance get suffocated by spectacle. And good government suffers as a result.

"So the lesson learned is a brutal one. There is no time to prioritise substance over the optics on a toxic issue that can be weaponised successfully against you.

There is zero reward for taking a moment to listen and think. Zero reward for respecting the cogitations of the highest court in the land.

This feels depressing, because it is depressing. Some days feel like we have entered engagement economy end times. Perhaps this is why the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, exploded like a firecracker during a press conference on Wednesday."




He didn't explode like a fire cracker though.
Journalists are too wedded to emotive language.

That article ends up doing what it's complaining about with that line
 
He didn't go off like a firecracker

He was answering the question calmly and the journalist tried to interrupt and wouldn't let him finish and he raised his voice

Murph is just giving Murdoch and co what they want with that easily quotable line
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Murph is just giving Murdoch and co what they want with that easily quotable line
LOL - pretty sure Murphy couldn't give a flying feck if NewsCorp quote her.

And the suggestion that NewsCorp needs ammunition from other journos to write bilious nonsense out of context is pretty laughable.
 
He didn't go off like a firecracker

He was answering the question calmly and the journalist tried to interrupt and wouldn't let him finish and he raised his voice

Murph is just giving Murdoch and co what they want with that easily quotable line

It was a press conference to indicate that the thing they couldn’t do, could, which would have prevented a sexual assault along with other offences. It’s fair enough to ask do they think an apology is in order for not doing what they now say can be done in advance to prevent what they said wouldn’t happen back in June when the high court indicated that it was likely to rule positively for the lovely Rohinga chap only guilty of raping a 10yo child when recidivism is almost 100%. The fact that Dreyfus lost his s**t, over a question Not directed at him but at the hapless O’Neill and answered is telling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It was a press conference to indicate that the thing they couldn’t do, could, which would have prevented a sexual assault along with other offences. It’s fair enough to ask do they think an apology is in order for not doing what they now say can be done in advance to prevent what they said wouldn’t happen back in June when the high court indicated that it was likely to rule positively for the lovely Rohinga chap only guilty of raping a 10yo child when recidivism is almost 100%. The fact that Dreyfus lost his s**t, over a question Not directed at him but at the hapless O’Neill and answered is telling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, he didn't lose his s**t, let alone over a question.
He was answering the question and the journalist interrupted before he had finished and he raised his voice and said he hadn't finished answering and the journo just kept on talking at him.

So he told them what he thought of their questions
 
Again, he didn't lose his s**t, let alone over a question.
He was answering the question and the journalist interrupted before he had finished and he raised his voice and said he hadn't finished answering and the journo just kept on talking at him.

So he told them what he thought of their questions

It wasn’t a question directed at him nor answered by him. And his response was not to answer but attack the female journalist. Every press conference journos ask repeat questions especially if the poli adds extra info. he chose not answer the question posed. The question was not about the high court decision but the government’s response. Dreyfus reveals the depth of incompetence and irritation he feels at the situation they’ve got us into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It wasn’t a question directed at him nor answered by him. And his response was not to answer but attack the female journalist. Every press conference journos ask repeat questions especially if the poli adds extra info. he chose not answer the question posed. The question was not about the high court decision but the government’s response. Dreyfus reveals the depth of incompetence and irritation he feels at the situation they’ve got us into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The question was beyond stupid and very obviously agenda driven, why should Dreyfus have to tolerate that?
 
The question was beyond stupid and very obviously agenda driven, why should Dreyfus have to tolerate that?

Essentially the question was, Do they feel any sympathy or empathy for the victims of crimes committed by individuals they had no need to release? O’Neill said no, we don’t care, we’re more interested in preventing any litigation or liability of the commonwealth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Essentially the question was, Do they feel any sympathy or empathy for the victims of crimes committed by individuals they had no need to release? O’Neill said no, we don’t care, we’re more interested in preventing any litigation or liability of the commonwealth.
Is that what happened?

Because I swear I heard an entirely different set of questions and answers.

Questions put by professional journalists based on a false premise for disingenuous reasons to generate exactly the response it got.

And the attack was on the premise of the question (statement) and the motives of the journalist for putting it. In a press conference.

What is the problem?
 
Last edited:
It wasn’t a question directed at him nor answered by him. And his response was not to answer but attack the female journalist. Every press conference journos ask repeat questions especially if the poli adds extra info. he chose not answer the question posed. The question was not about the high court decision but the government’s response. Dreyfus reveals the depth of incompetence and irritation he feels at the situation they’ve got us into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you watched the footage which I posted above in this thread?
 
LOL - pretty sure Murphy couldn't give a flying feck if NewsCorp quote her.

And the suggestion that NewsCorp needs ammunition from other journos to write bilious nonsense out of context is pretty laughable.
need it? no

use it? definitely

regardless of whether they do my original point about emotive language still stands

Murphy is contributing to the idea that he exploded at a journalist by writing that

she's doing that old oh the media are terrible, but not us at the guardian crap

well they have Dutton quotes as headlines plastered all over their site on a daily basis and headlines get read the most and provide the least context

progressive media and readers of it like to think its only the conservative media that are responsible for the current stat of politics and political coverage here but its not even remotely true
 
So the government is "asking" retailers and producers to just wear the incremental costs they have seen in their business since last year?

Don't worry about the fact that their same job, same pay legislation has pushed up costs in the manufacturing sector (I'm not trying to prosecute the case for or against the legislation itself, merely pointing out the impact on cost base) or that transport costs are higher or that overall wage costs are up. And that's all before any impact of input material costs.
So your happy to advocate for inequality in the workplace by the sounds of it. We need to change the mindset of big corporations that it's all about them and their profits. It isn't and never has been. Nobody wins if you keep jacking up the prices to run your business. People will end up boycotting and choosing another option. It's got to that point now you need to see the general consensus of the public. Taking Big business's side won't achieve anything in the current climate.
 
So your happy to advocate for inequality in the workplace by the sounds of it. We need to change the mindset of big corporations that it's all about them and their profits. It isn't and never has been. Nobody wins if you keep jacking up the prices to run your business. People will end up boycotting and choosing another option. It's got to that point now you need to see the general consensus of the public. Taking Big business's side won't achieve anything in the current climate.
That's not what I'm advocating for at all. I was pointing out that, on one hand, the government is legislating wage increases and on the other hand, telling retailers/manufacturers to freeze their prices. It's pretty much the first thing I've heard the government say on cost of living, and their trying to make the private sector do the heavy lifting.

You've just described basic supply and demand, if that holds true then why is there a need for the government to intervene?
 
It wasn’t a question directed at him nor answered by him. And his response was not to answer but attack the female journalist. Every press conference journos ask repeat questions especially if the poli adds extra info. he chose not answer the question posed. The question was not about the high court decision but the government’s response. Dreyfus reveals the depth of incompetence and irritation he feels at the situation they’ve got us into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why do you need to say female journalist and not just journalist?

The murdoch press are making it only happened because it was a female that asked the question. If it was a male journalist that asked a stupid question and then rudely interrupted the answer then they would have received the same treatment.

In regards to you saying he didn't answer the question...they asked if the government should apologise and he answered that the Government won't apologise for upholding the law and the high courts decision.
 
Anyone see the real problem in the story?
----------------------------------------------------

Guardian Australia revealed in October that NZYQ arrived by boat in September 2012 but had his bridging visa cancelled in January 2015 when he was charged with raping a 10-year-old in Australia. In January 2016 he pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a person aged between 10 and 14 years in breach of the New South Wales Crimes Act.

He served a non-parole period of three years and four months, was released from prison and sent into immigration detention in May 2018, but was denied a safe-haven enterprise visa.
 
Anyone see the real problem in the story?
----------------------------------------------------

Guardian Australia revealed in October that NZYQ arrived by boat in September 2012 but had his bridging visa cancelled in January 2015 when he was charged with raping a 10-year-old in Australia. In January 2016 he pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a person aged between 10 and 14 years in breach of the New South Wales Crimes Act.

He served a non-parole period of three years and four months, was released from prison and sent into immigration detention in May 2018, but was denied a safe-haven enterprise visa.

It doesn't mention his country of origin?
 
Why do you need to say female journalist and not just journalist?

The murdoch press are making it only happened because it was a female that asked the question. If it was a male journalist that asked a stupid question and then rudely interrupted the answer then they would have received the same treatment.

In regards to you saying he didn't answer the question...they asked if the government should apologise and he answered that the Government won't apologise for upholding the law and the high courts decision.

Well doofus could hardly apologise seeing though he was assisting the human rights commission in making the application to the high court to begin with.. his grubby hands are all over it.no wonder he cracked it..

He really was having a bad day seeing though the Brittany Higgins payout he was apart of is going to be looked at by the national anti corruption commission.
 
Well doofus could hardly apologise seeing though he was assisting the human rights commission in making the application to the high court to begin with.. his grubby hands are all over it.no wonder he cracked it..

He really was having a bad day seeing though the Brittany Higgins payout he was apart of is going to be looked at by the national anti corruption commission.
Again it was a gotcha question from a sky news mouthpiece who was called out on it. Do you want the government to ignore the high court ruling?

Should the government just ignore these things like the previous government did with Robodebt?

LNP the government of law and order unless it affects them
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top