<< LET HIM LIVE ~ MAIN ~ MENTAL IMAGE CREATED >>
MEDIA WATCH ATTACKS!
The ABC’s Media Watch—using your taxes to monitor evil conservatives!—has launched into Janet Albrechtsen and Arthur Chrenkoff following Albrechtsen’s mention of Chrenkoff’s Good News From Iraq. The program’s attack begins with this extract from a recent Albrechtsen column:
When something positive does happen it either gets filtered through the anti war eyes of the media or is all but ignored. And that’s what the terrorists are counting on. They must detest The Wall Street Journal. Each fortnight the paper’s website includes a round up of good news from Iraq … last week came the latest instalment, all 27 pages of it.
Media Watch responded:
27 pages of good news, from the prestigious Wall Street Journal? We wanted to know more ... but couldn’t find it on their web site. Until we followed this link to a spin-off site called OpinionJournal.com, where, if you hunt hard enough ...
Opinion Journal is a WSJ spin-off in the same way Media Watch is an ABC spin-off. It’s run by the same management. Eventually Media Watch did find Arthur’s latest WSJ contribution, after some two million readers had no difficulty earlier locating Chrenkoff’s website:
Scroll down the page and its pretty soon apparent that far from being the news that no-one else has reported, Arthur’s good news is culled from stories produced by the BBC, the Washington Post, and other media outlets.
Stories like this —Iraqi Boy, 10, Gets New Legs in America
Surgeon, Prosthetics Firm Make Donations to Help Wounded Iraqi Boy Walk Again
— ABC News (US)
Great example, clowns, and a reminder of why Chrenkoff is such a valuable antidote to misery-chasing ABC tax leeches. Media Watch ignores the many items Chrenkoff cites that are shunned by the wider press.
There’s also a fair swag of material direct from government agencies like USAID. These pages were not produced by a Wall Street journalist, but a self described blogger.
Not only is he a mere blogger, but much worse:
So who is Arthur Chrenkoff? Well a quick google search throws up this ...
Dr.Arthur Chrenkoff is a former Policy Vice-President of Queensland Young Liberals. ...
Chrenkoff’s credibility is blown to hell! He’s exposed as a member of the evil party! Next, Media Watch plays the chickenhawk card:
He lives in Brisbane. He’s never been to Iraq, and has no plans to do so. Arthur just trawls the web for the good news from Iraq.
If it’s so damn easy, why doesn’t the ABC ever do the same?
Arthur is not paid by the Wall Street Journal or the Dow Jones website OpinionJournal.com which publishes his blog without editing.
Media Watch is apparently unaware that the Dow Jones Company owns the WSJ and all its associated sites. Either that or it’s trying to convince viewers that the primary WSJ site and OpinionJournal.com are separate entities. And what’s Media Watch’s problem with no editing? When the Melbourne Age edits Michael Leunig’s cartoons, Media Watch gets all upset about it. Janet Albrechtsen replied to Media Watch’s stupid questions:
”... the round-up is indeed compiled by Mr Chrenkoff and published online by the WSJ, a highly respected newspaper. Any suggestion that I somehow misrepresented the relationship between the WSJ and ‘Good News from Iraq’ would be the kind of slanted journalism I thought Media Watch was set up to eliminate, not perpetuate.
And she receives a predictably dumb answer:
No Janet.
Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website — it’s a blog published by a sister site.
Take another look at that so-called sister site. See the big words at the top of the screen? “From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page”? And the “WSJ.com” icon to the left?
You’ll note that throughout this attack Media Watch hasn’t once sought to challenge any of Chrenkoff’s Good News. It simply aims to bring down Chrenkoff, a conservative whose views aren’t acceptable to Media Watch. As reader Cheesie writes: “Privatise the ABC. Right now. Even better, force it to work on Chrenkoff’s budget and see how far they get.”
UPDATE. Media Watch executive producer Peter McEvoy emails:
Just to correct your blog again.
Media Watch did not launch an attack on Arthur Chrenkoff. I spoke to Arthur at length before the story and have always made it clear that I think his “Good News” project is admirable.
Arthur clearly does a lot of hard work to compile his blog - I’m amazed that he finds the time on top of his job. I think it’s a useful collation although of course it’s only one side of the story. Arthur makes no bones about that. As he told me:
“In no writing of my own do I ever deny that those negative things are going on. I guess the problem that I see is that wherever there’s bad news it gets more prominence. In reporting there’s a natural bias to violence and controversy rather than boring things like ‘another sewerage station was opened today’ which in the long run may be more important. I’m trying to redress the balance.”
Arthur’s blog expresses his politics and his personal passion, which is great, but that’s not a substitute for reporting the full story, good and bad, from Iraq.
There is still an important difference between journalism and blogging. Just as there is a difference between the site that Janet Albrechtsen identified http://www.wsj.com (you left that out of your quote by the way) and the other Dow Jones site where Arthur Chrenkoff’s Good News appears http://www.opinionjournal.com.
Regards
Peter McEvoy
UPDATE II. Australian investigative blogger Gandhi reveals the secret links that connect Chrenkoff to a sinister global network of US-backed operatives located everywhere from Bagram to Berlin:
For example, Chrenkoff celebrated his blog’s first anniversary with some intriguing nods of thanks to supporters including “Major Tammes at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, our special correspondent and tireless translator Haider Ajina, and friends at CENTCOM, various embassies and ministerial offices, who have to remain nameless.”
Another example. I became suspicious that Omar Fadhil, one of the bloggers at Iraq The Model, was actually running a Berlin-based radio show. According to my Google search, about the only person in the world who posted a link to this German “Election Radio” show was Australian-based blogger Arthur Chrenkoff, who just happens to be a very big fan of the brothers at Iraq The Model (the feeling is mutual). Chrenkoff’s link to the German radio show was included in part 20 of his “Good News From Iraq” series. Surprise, surprise, Omar Fadhil at Iraq The Model then just happened to post a link to Chrenkoff’s Good News From Iraq Part 20 story!
Wheels within wheels, my friends. Wheels within wheels. And there’s more, as Gandhi exposes the terrifying truth about Iraq the Model’s Jewish promoter:
The site has links to 16 Jewish Publications, 5 Jewish Charities and 32 other Jewish Links. Now why is such a site promoting Iraq The Model?
You tell me.
As if that evidence weren’t compelling enough, Omar from Iraq the Model confirms it all:
Ghandi, everything you mentioned is true.
now, could you please leave us alone.
we’re the bad guys and you’re an angel from heaven, does this satisfy your beautiful sick mind?
get the fuck out of this CIA blog or I will have your brain taken out and tested in our secret laboratories.
Omar
Media Watch must hire this man. He will uncover for them all the darkness of the blogosphere.
Arthur Chrenkoff is a great man. He is not a polemicist. Reading his blog, it’s obvious he considers his postings very carefully and makes an effort to distinguish between fact and opinion. I think he does a great job. If you want to see what a real histrionic, vicious, vituperative flaming blog is like, have a look at the Daily Kos.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 05 09 at 02:49 PM • permalinkAnd, if he had ever looked at the damn paper, he would see that much of that Dow Jones content produced by the sister site appears on the next to last two pages of the paper’s first section, EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST ZILLION YEARS.
Bizarre. (And especially clueless because there is actually an interesting story in the degree of independence the very polemical WSJ editorial page, especially back under the late Robert Bartley, and the less polemical news sections sought from each other. But the idea that they are not two departments of the exact same publication is so weird that it’s like Media Watch never saw a newspaper before. Did you know that the Sydney Morning Herald has a sister publication called “the sports page?” It’s owned by the same company, but appears on a DIFFERENT PAGE and is written by DIFFERENT PEOPLE than the regular news.)
What the hell. Has Media Watch never heard of the WSJ? It’s not exactly a minor newspaper, reporting as it does mainly on the American economy and stocks and things. And everyone knows, including, one would think, member of the Australian media, that the opinion pages in the WSJ are a really big deal, precisely because they’re such a big and important and credible newspaper. So if everyone knows that, then everyone should know that their opinion pages are so wonderful they got their very own website. It’s not a “sister” site, for crying out loud. You’d think these people have never heard of this small burg in the States called New York. You know New York: It’s Jerusalem’s Sister City (uh oh! a jewish connection!)
Oh, yay!
Brave, brave media watch!
Arthur has opinions that do not match Mediawatch - he must be destroyed!!!!
Meanwhile, Margo “Zionists contol everything” Kingston continues working…
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 09 at 04:56 PM • permalinkFrom THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page�? And the “WSJ.com� icon to the left?
You don’t even need to look at the page - in your browser title bar it says “From the Wall Street Journal.”
Liz, learn how to use your computer!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 09 at 04:58 PM • permalinkAdditionally, why is the political affiliations of Media Watch’s targets relevant, and the political affiliations of Media Watch’s host, producer and staff not?
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 09 at 05:02 PM • permalinkYep, attack the messenger. Good one Liz, next week, watch Media Watch’s detailed expose of why the sun is rising in the east.
Like Tim, I’ve had a beer with Arthur, and a more polite, educated gentleman I have yet to meet. In a world of polemicists and whingers, Arthur does in a day what takes multi-million dollar TV shows months to do, if they would ever attempt it at all.
I’m calling for resignation as well.
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest Liz Jackson’s armpits.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 09 at 06:29 PM • permalinkThis is an amazing tantrum by MediaBotch.
I do not see how the ABC can continue with this program - its credibility is completely shot.
Attacking “targets” such as Chrenkoff and Albrechtsen is revealing. Revealing of extreme stupidity.
How about replacing the host? What I really mean is that if the ABC is host to grubby organisms like this, then perhaps the ABC should be replaced.
With an impartial and competent National Broadcaster!James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today and OpinionJournal are required reading for RWDBs, the former available by email. I eagerly await them on weekdays.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 09 at 06:36 PM • permalinkThe way Media Watch tells it, you would think that Opinion Journal and Chrenkoff’s work were hidden in some secret enclave of the web which, by dedicated sleuthing, they were able to uncover.
Actually, if you type “wall street journal good news from iraq” into Google, guess what the #1 hit is?
I guess that Google is too modern and sophisticated a tool for Media Watch researchers. It is outrageous that these people actually get paid for what they produce, and Arthur Chrenkoff does not.
The biggest sin that Albrechtsen seems to have made according to MediaJihad is that she referred readers to wsj.com, not opinionjournal.com. Arthur’s stuff is difficult to find from wsj.com, but a lot of the criticism seems trite when opinion journal heads up their Arthur’s column with “A roundup of the past two weeks good news from Iraq”
Media watch should apologise and post 1 july abc tv should be sold off. Tim I am still waiting on the 1 july counter to coundown the dates on your front screen
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 09 at 07:25 PM • permalinkTell media watch what you think
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Peter McEvoy
Executive ProducerBeware though, McEvoy is a biased clown i am still trying to get him to run a piece on deputy sherrifs but he is clutching at irrelevant trivia to avoid it
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 09 at 07:28 PM • permalinkLet’s not be too hasty folks, here in Australia where conservatives are virtually an underground movement, the lefties at the ABC have their uses.
Many of Media Watch’s viewers have now heard of Chrenkoff and the Wall Street Journal for the first time—some may even check them out and begin thinking for themselves.
It can happen—after all, how many of today’s conservatives used to be lefties?Tim, now that you are Prime Minister of the UK, please go to Buckingham Palace and request the Queen to appoint you Australia’s Minister of Communication (she has the constitutional power through the Governor General). Next sack the entire ABC Board, cancel Media Watch and privatise the ABC. Thanking you in advance.
Do you get the feeling MediaWatch is what You’re Democracy? wants to be, if only it could get off the booze and weed?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 09 at 07:47 PM • permalinkI am disgusted reading this. Seriously, of all the bone fide targets out there, they target a man who aims to bring some truth into what we read each day. Cherenkoff is simply taking what has been published, often by respected sources, and disseminates these facts. Yet Mc Geough can make an unsubstantiated claim and be rewarded!!!
Did anyone else get the impression that she was straining every finger muscle to keep from putting “prestigious” in sneer quotes? It’s not like the WSJ is sold all over the world or anything like that. Just some dumb local American rag, whose stories on Iraq carry approximately the same weight as the Mid-York Weekly’s articles about the local fire chief’s son’s fifth birthday.
Not really on topic, but ABC related anyway.
Did anyone see the recent episode of Catalyst dealing with the subject of “Corporate Psychopaths”?
After the initial introduction in which the presenter humourously pointed out that, based on statistics there should be a certain number of psychopaths working in the building right behind her (ABC headquarters), the cameras took us inside the building.
Whose was the first big publicity image we saw up on the walls? Philip Adams!I haven’t laughed at anything on the ABC so much since the last Federal election night coverage.
Meanwhile Mediawitch Fran Kelly was comprehensively outdebated,outclassed and rolled up horse,foot and guns by immigration minister Amanda Vanstone this a.m.
That’ll learn her not to do a nasty little intro"looking forward to a very SOLID half hour with A.V.” Prior to that she ran a promo for the Law Report detailing all the wrongs of immigration”.Just in case we didn’t get it. Good on you Amanda you MUZZLED her.The sheltered workshop assholes at the ABC are aparently too stupid to understand that their TV adience would mostly never have seen Chrenkoff untill they pointed him out. Although I very much doubt that any of them would have taken the time to actually check the.. what is it called again, “intarnet”?.. to actually read it for themselves, it’s not generally good policy to give your political enemies publicity.
I lived for the first 28 years of my life in this fucking country and had NEVER heard the conservative viewpoint, that’s how total the stranglehold the leftist media establishment has on what we get to read and hear. It took sep 11 to break that grip, I read a Charles Krauthammer article in the back of Time magazine and thought, “Jesus, he’s exactly right.” I went and googled his name and went from there.
These pathetic buffoons are beginning to feel the rage and impotence of their US brothers, of having lost the means to bully and exclude countering voices.
There’s no media more ‘old media’ than the ABC, in every sense, it’s tired, smug PC assumptions, it’s tax-subsidised lazyness and it’s hysterical fear and hate of a new competitor. And there’s no ‘new media’ newer in it’s energy and flexibilty than a blog like Chrenkoff’s. The dinosaurs are about to get their clocks cleaned, viva la revolution.
Geez, what a bunch of pissy old curmudgeons. And these guys are professional journalists who don’t know that OpinionJournal is published by the WSJ?
Maybe someone should also tell them that there’s another “ABC” here in the United States. They’re probably wondering why they never run into Peter Jennings at work. Poor little guys.
PW that was certainly one of the most appalling aspects of Liz Jackson’s attempt at controversy. She clearly is woefully uninformed about the medium of the media. Amos’s analogy with dinosaurs I agree with, I would like to think that it’s hysterical fear and hate of a new competitor but Liz Jackson’s spiel unfortunately leaves me without any doubt that a revolution in the media has passed her by. One would have to wonder what she thought Murdoch was talking about
“Mr Murdoch said that news “providers” such as his own organisation had better get web-savvy, stop lecturing their audiences, “become places for conversation” and “destinations” where bloggers” and “podcasters” congregate to “engage our reporters and editors in more extended discussions.” He also criticised editors and reporters who often “think their readers are stupid”.
The New York Times has released its report on itself today (Buzzmachine source) and even they are recommending the following in order to improve their credibility “Use the Web to provide readers with complete documents used in stories as well as transcripts of interviews. Consider creating a Times blog that promotes interaction with readers.�
Finally to question Chrenkoff’s integrity and credibility, which is what she has done, in order to continue the ABC’s ideological war is unacceptable in our public broadcaster
Liz Jackson and her team have no credibility and should go.Thanks for the email contact Astonished.
We Yanks have our analogues of the ABC - though, I must admit, nobody who’s quite that clueless. Anyone who couldn’t find “opinionjournal.com” couldn’t find his head with both hands and a compass.
But what never ceases to amaze me is that Arthur Chrenkoff is trolling for a job on his web site. The man is a superb editor - painstaking, scrupulous, thorough - and writes with marvelous lucidity. His “Good News” series is a model of how to compile news from a wide variety of news sources. Frankly, the chumps and chumpettes at the ABC aren’t good enough to polish his shoes, let alone sneer at him. Some day an enterprising publisher will hire Chrenkoff to edit his on-line edition - and instantly make himself rich. May that day come soon!
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2005 05 09 at 09:31 PM • permalinkYeah, but Liz can get away with anything, being such a hornbag- and that see-through black top with the nun bra showing through underneath- hubba hubba! The ABC can’t pay much, it’s been the same hideous outfit every week so far- looks like the sort of gear an old slapper would wear in the ‘Cross in 1971, trying to pick up US Sailors on R&R from ‘Nam. That’s two RWDB sites naile by MW, with the good prof being scatched about the eyes by Marrmie last year- I await to see an expose of the inaccuracies and exagerations perpetrated daily at Margoritaville for example.
I woke up this morning, made koffee, went to Chrenkoff, and what did I find but a huge swarm (what was the collective noun again?) a huge parade of moonbats!
And why? Because of some crazy elite Aussie journalist, that’s why! What’s all this talk about free beer for Aussies? Ha! I think y’all owe me one.
A pint, even!
And here’s hoping you Chrenkoff readers who read here as well appreciated my valiant effort to take on the chronically insufferable “Antonio”.
Ok, I’m finished with the martyrdom; ( <—semi-colon ) it’s time for a shower.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 05 09 at 10:00 PM • permalinkListening to ABC 702 on Saturday morning between 8.30 and 9.00 one might be forgiven for thinking that at least that program segment had already been privatised.The presenter gives backhand endorsements to various fishmongers,butchers and fruit and vegetable vendors as well as allowing a chef from some upmarket cafe or other the opportunity to get some “free” air time.The relaxed approach to these favored citizens contrasts sharply to the strict application of the “no advertising” rule in later segments if a guest or caller should happen mention a brand name for some garden manure or other or perhaps wood glue.Such behaviour invariably earns the offender a caution from our now very proper presenter.
Watched the Liz Jackson moan fest last night (after an interesting four corners program on Lebanon BTW). Had me on the floor laughing at the over the top patheticness (is that a word) of the tirade.
Albrechtson was the target, and I must admit she did set herself up with the incorrect web reference (IMHO all she said wrong). Ms Jackson’s efforts to portray Opinion Journal as a separate publication to the WSJ is certainly laughable though.That leaves aside the implicit assumption of Chrenkoff’s credibility because he is a) a blogger; and b) connected to the liberal party. ROTFL.
McEvoy’s attempt to pretend that they were not bismirching Chrenkoff is a load of crap - he is implicitly discredited in order to build their case against Albrechston.Chrenkoff was just collateral damage.
This is another example of Liz’s approach to journalism- write your story, then go and get some filler to pad it out to the appropriate length. Whether or not the facts actually fit your story is not too relevant: if not, it’s merely inconvienent and means a bit more work to finish your story.
Cal - the transcript will be available tomorrow here.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 09 at 10:49 PM • permalinkWho was it made the comment recently (it might have been Glenn Reynolds), that attacking bloggers appears almost to have become a publicity seeking strategy for the small fry in the dinosaur media.
Although Arthur Chrenkoff may have gained some new readers from being slimed by Media Watch (many of whom who hopefully are sufficiently open minded to take something positive away from his Blog), I’m guessing he has a far larger (and certainly more devoted, and most definitely more influential) audience than Media Watch.
Knowing this, and perhaps dazzled by the chance to fling mud in the direction of WSJ, maybe they were just looking for a bit of left-wing-goon-squad-street-cred.
There’s been a lot of it going ‘round. (Powerline for example have been virtually stalked by some desperate nobody of a journalist in some nowhere newspaper).
Janet Albrechtsen has had a number of run-ins with Media Watch. Her most controversial one was when she was caught out plagiarising and misquoting comments made by European academics on what she claimed was migrant Muslim cultural encouragement to rape white women.
Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of knowledge about Muslim migrant cultures could have told that she was spinning crap. And one smart duffer did some googling and discovered just that.
There is nothing inherently conservative about hating followers of another faith and/or culture. Especially when that faith has 1.5 billion followers and makes up 25% of the human beings on the planet.
But then again, conservative Germans on the eve of WWII thought making similar accusations against Jews was acceptable.
Media Watch has jumped the shark.
A pale and shoddy imitation of its debut years, now reduced to slagging political opponents and wasting airtime on alleged Photoshopped pix of “movie stars” in women’s fluff magazines.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 05 09 at 11:31 PM • permalinksortelli,
hating other faiths is a hobby horse of the far left and the far right. why? because it takes a certain minimum level of stupidity to belong to either fringe. but understanding other people requires some intelligence.
it surprises me that someone with a PhD in commercial law could be stupid enough to think she could get away with sloppy and rough-shod research.
it also surprises me that she could write infantile analyses of UN resolutions and pass herself off as an expert on international law.
seeya
Yes, PalentIrf, I agree that Albrechston HAS set herself up on occasion in the past with some shoddy articles (well, the one on french moslems, anyway). But the odd slip up in the quality of research on her behalf are immediately targeted by the left as they perceive her as an enemy (this current incident is trivial and yet still becomes the focus of media watch).
Similar incidents have not hurt columnists of the left, or bought them the attention of Lizzie’s moan fest.The issue here is that Media Watch is a left wing, or perhaps PC, platform for attacking the right (or more correctly, anyone not complying with the McEvoy view of the world). Any pretention of fair mindedness is laughable.
There is still an important difference between journalism and blogging
Yes, blogs get it right more often, and can get exposed as biased and/or incorrect through their habit of linking to wat they’re talking about. Beats me why getting an Arts degree suddenly makes you a bunch more credible than anybody else.
There is still an important difference between journalism and blogging.
They just don’t get it.
Out of interest decided to google Arthur, as it seemed likely that he would be a prominent node in the net of the web. It got boring it just went on and on. He certainly is a influential node, his influence is not so muc from links from other bloggers as in references to him and his work and directs to his articles.
Two references I came across were of particular interest in light of the current argument. One was the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Arthur is found in their research areas within a list of a number of Journalists and links to their articles. The references includes the journal or paper in which they are published and a link to the article. Arthur, who has material of his on Iraq, Afghanistan and Poland included is identified as Chrenkoff’s Blog or Wall Street Journal depending on which is their source journal or paper. Good enough for the AEI to consider him a journalist with the Wall Street Journal, but not our ABC or Mr McEvoy. Clearly from the US perspective online or in print, journalists, and of equal standing. The only advantage of specifically identifying the Online Journal is ease of finding if the interested reader wishes to follow up. I wonder how the WSJ with it’s impressive approach to reaching readers through all credible alternative sources feel about their online being described as a blog on a sister site. Someone should get on the web and tell them. They probably thought that their Wall Street Journal Opinionjornal was a catchy branding exercise for that part of their NEWS DISSEMINATION and REACH.
Good on yer ABC you probably think that transport is wrong, it should be choo choos and boats and planes. Logistics for transport is just a new fangled trendy word. Just as the media is Papers and radio and TV. Then there is that passing phase, nothing to do with reporting the news, the web.
The other item of interest contrary to the ABC and Mr McEvoy,s view is the following excerpt from E. Thomas McClanahan editorial staff of the Kansas City Star for university student journal. (Very different to what our students get to pay for)
Journalists used to say, “Get off your rear and report.” But these days, it’s just as important to sit down, log onto the Internet and supplement your view of what’s going on. A good starting place would be the Web log of Arthur Chrenkoff (http://www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com), a Polish Australian blogger who compiles a periodic roundup of “good news from Iraq.”
He may not be calling him a journalist, Arthur doesn’t call himself a journalist, but is clearly acknowledging him as a very important and credible cog in news gathering, analysis and dissemination. So you are known in Kansas Arthur, and of course in Poland and Iraq and Spain etc. And Liz Jackxon thinks he is just a blogger.
It is also outrageous as others have commented that Ms Jackson and co did their research by trying to find out facts about Arthur Chrenkoff not the work of Arthur Chrenkoff. If I was paranoid I would think they were hoping to get dirt on him(maybe they think they did, Liberal Party oh my) If they had spent just a few moments researching the importance and reach of Arthur Chrenkoff they could have saved themselves some considerable pain. They might have noticed that while he is relatively unknown in Australia he has considerable following in the global world.
Grow up ABC the world is passing you by.There is still an important difference between journalism and blogging
And my dear Peter, there is an even more obvious difference between journalism and MediaWatch…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 10 at 01:18 AM • permalinkHmmm… interesting. Does Chrenk have a big nose? Does he eat pork? Refuses to blog on a saturday? And what exactly was he doing in East Germany when The Wall and the ‘Evil Empire’ came down? I ask you!!
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 10 at 02:28 AM • permalinkHey, gandhi used to troll here until we exposed him as a pretty silly boy.
Cool that he’s got his own blog now.
Bushout, eh?
Sounds like a sexual position.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 10 at 02:41 AM • permalinkI have published in the Wall Street Journal—on its editorial page several times, and I have done two research projects for them.
I have news for the ABC. The Editorial Pages of the Journal are PART of the Journal. If Media Watch doubts it, just pick up a copy of the newspaper and check. I assure you: the Editorial Pages are part of the newspaper.
OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. It is fully owned by the WSJ and run by current WSJ staffers as part of their jobs. The WSJ has at least 2 websites, one for the news section and another for the editorial page.
Each time I wrote for the Journal, the story ran on OpinionJournal.com, sometimes before it ran in the paper, sometimes after it ran in the paper, because (as I’ve said) OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. The people I dealt with on the website were mostly the same as the people I dealt with for the print version, because they work at the same place, the Wall Street Journal.
I know that this post is a repetitive, but I am trying to say this in many different ways so that ABC can’t pretend to misunderstand. But then, Media Watch is known for its obtuseness.
ABC should cut Media Watch in half: half the time given to the current staff and half to Tim Blair and a staff he puts together. Tim could fill 15 minutes just on the gaffes and bias of the other half of Media Watch, but I’m sure he’d cover the rest of the Australian media. The ratings would go through the roof; it would be fabulous television; and the show would be much more responsibly reported than it currently is.
Posted by James Lindgren on 2005 05 10 at 02:48 AM • permalink“The site has links to 16 Jewish Publications, 5 Jewish Charities and 32 other Jewish Links. Now why is such a site promoting Iraq The Model?”
Well, I am gratified to be singled out as a promoter of ITM - I need the traffic - although many other Jewish blogs link to it more than I do.
The short answer to Ghandi’s question is that as a Jew (who just celebrated the liberation of my people from slavery in Egypt), I am interested in the liberation of all peoples from slavery. Since many of my people lived in ancient Babylonia (our oral Torah, the Talmud, was redacted by the great rabbinical community of Pumbeditha, which is now Fallujah), many of us have been following the Iraq war with especial fascination.
If Ghandi did some more blog browsing he would find that many Jewish blogs have been linking to ITM.
Googled
“Arthur Chrenkoff” 97,300 hits
“Liz Jackson” 7,950 hits
“Media Watch”+Australia 66,700 hitsSays it all
Posted by KevGillett on 2005 05 10 at 03:18 AM • permalinkhalf the time given to the current staff and half to Tim Blair and a staff he puts together
Yes! I love it! And I sure know which half would be the most fun.
And TB could probably resource his segment solely from volunteers - and produce a far more rigorous, robust commentary.
Think you’re up to it, ABC & MW?
I had a bit of fun with this. Thanks for the tip, Tim!
How quaint to see “our” comrades at the ABC struggling to comprehend something as baffling as the internet. Bloggers and clicking a link to get from on place to another, oh the technology! A more smug and condesending bunch of twits you’d look a long time to find. As usual Media Watch can’t see the Leftist log in its own eye, while pokes at its targets on the Right. Who is Arthur Chrenkoff indeed? Someone who could do the ABC’s news department’s job for them for a start. Media Watch has all the symtoms of the partisan madness that has made the National broadcaster an embarrasment for the last decade. I, like many grew up with it as a trusted part of my world, now it’s a sad shadow of itself, reduced to lashing out at the media that most people are turning to instead, the dreadful Rupert and his minions. Hell, even in his dotage, he understands the role blogs are having in reconnecting people to the news.
Posted by Bluebottle on 2005 05 10 at 04:21 AM • permalinkMEDIA MASSACRES TRUTH
Congratulations are due to SBS TV for running (tonight) the excellent Cutting Edge: Jenin – Massacring Truth. It was a forensic dissection of the reporting of the Jenin action wherein the Israeli Defence Forces went into Jenin, engaged Palestinian fighters in the “refugee� camp and did a lot of damage to a relatively small part of the town. This was where most of the suicide bombers were coming from, and where violent action against Israel was a way of life.
It was widely reported as a massacre, and later this proved to be false. Some 26 killed, not hundreds. More were killed in the preceding suicide bombings in Israel. The reportage in the press around the world was lurid, graphic, extreme, and for the most part quite untrue. Even Palestinian propagandist Erekat admits to a mistake, which is much more than most British reporters could do when interviewed later. Nor could the Human Rights Watch Spokesperson make any sense of their position on “war crimes� (that’s what Israelis do) as opposed to “violation of international law� (that’s what suicide bombers do).
The program underlines again what has been happening in the world’s media outlets. Journalists allow their own prejudices to run the show, and are not verifying stories – because it does not suit them to do so. Worse, they cannot even admit it later when the cold hard proof arrives on their doorstep. Some of them still cannot see where they went wrong.
The attacks on Albrechtsen and Chrenkoff are but a small symptom of this disease.Interesting how McEvoy tries to turn it around—they have to expose Chrenkoff and the others dominating the public discourse with all the good news from Iraq and remind people there IS another side: “I think it’s a useful collation although of course it’s only one side of the story… that’s not a substitute for reporting the full story, good and bad, from Iraq.” You know, like the mainstream media do. Uh huh.
By the way, I understand that McEvoy has a brother called “Peter.” Because he answers when his mother calls him Peter, he must be a different person!
The really pathetic thing about all this is that an organisation called Media Watch - with paid researchers and all - didn’t twig that the good news published by the WSJ from Iraq each fortnight was Chrenkoff’s. I mean, they had to go hunting for it. How switched on would you have to be in this day and age to be researching the media full time and not realise who Jane was talking about?
I own a company that employs researchers all across Asia and if I had any as dumb as McEvoy and Co they’d be looking hard for a job tomorrow. Fact is none of them are. Funny that, huh?
But then again, conservative Germans on the eve of WWII thought making similar accusations against Jews was acceptable.
Irfy, do you know just how lame this sounds? Only ghandi with his “Conspiracy of JOOOOOOOSSSSS!” sounds more stupid.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 10 at 09:15 AM • permalinkDid it never occur to McEvoy to click the button labeled “about us”? It would take him to this page:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/about/whoweare.html
which not only refers to the immediate writers of the Opinion Journal, including “Paul A. Gigot Editor, Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal” but also explicitly identifies The Wall Street Journal and its staff, The Asian Wall Street Journal and its staff, and The Wall Street Journal Europe and its staff. How can someone incapable of missing facts this obvious be capable of judging journalism?
I think the whole Media Watch coverage was excellent!
Look at it objectively; what portion of current readers of Chrenkoff will be put off by the Media Watch story, my guess close to zero. What portion of Chrenkoff readers that watched Media Watch would now discount everything they ever hear on Media Watch or ABC again, 50+%. Net result, another knife in the back of the Evil Empire!
Stevo: to my knowledge Chrenkoff doesn’t speak any of the languages I really need - Chinese (full form and simplified, Cantonese and Mandarin), Thai, Indonesian/Malay, Khmer, Urdu, Tamil, Hindi, Korean and Japanese. I also need people on the ground, expert in the areas we specialise in, and locals not expats. My only expat employees translate and edit English. And anyway, I suspect the guy is quite happy in his present job.
Wow, I never realized I was a member of an evil cabal when I was at Bagram. I mistaken believed I was an officer in Task Force Eagle…Thanks to ghandi, I now realize the depths of my degredation!
Sincerely,
Major John TammesP.S. I’d do it all over again, muhahahahaha!
Posted by Major John on 2005 05 11 at 04:27 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Did Media Watch contact the Wall Street Journal or OpinionJournal.com to find out their relationship? If no, that is entirely unacceptable.
I expect the producer’s resignation on my desk by 4 pm Sydney time. Stat!