Gerard Henderson has raised a good point about double standards in the reaction by the mainstream media to the recent interference by the British High Commissioner "Baroness" Amos in Australian politics compared with a similar incident in 2003 by the then US ambassador to Australia. In 2003 our leftist media doyens got positively apoplectic when the American ambassador was seen to interfere in Australian politics by criticising former ALP politician Mark Latham. Yet this time round there was a notable silence. Of course the difference is that the American ambassador at the time was representing that Great Satan the United States, led by that spawn of Satan himself Dubya and the context was the Iraq War. Now we have a Blairite British Labour Party hack insulting the Australian people for daring to have a democratic debate on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). As I said, hardly a peep from the Ministry of Truth and their media acolytes on the conduct of the "Baroness". Apparently it's verboten for the American Ambassador representing a conservative US administration (one universally hated by our leftist media darlings) to take pot shots at a leftish (he was from the right wing of the Labor Party and was a bit of a maverick by current politically correct lefty standards) Australian politician who dared to question the Australian-US military alliance at the time of the Iraq war but it's fine for a Blairite British Labour party hack extraordinaire on an all-expenses-paid extended holiday to sunnier climes in the former colonies to put those impudent colonials (especially conservative politicians) in their place by attempting to silence a democratic debate about a question of great concern and tell those pesky colonials to just "move on" to her more enlightened way of seeing things. Just what we need more of in Australia: rule by British "baronesses" appointed High Commissioner for nothing more than their unfailing loyalty to the dear leader Blair. Oh the irony it all. Our vociferous pommy-bashing republican movement spends its energies trying to remove a woman with a royal title from Australian public life while they fail to see the real threats to the Australian res publica including the unwelcome remarks of a certain British High Commissioner complete with a sham aristocratic title (what's the British Labour Party's going rate for a knighthood or peerage these days anyway?). And to top it all off, hardly a word of censure from our self-appointed guardians of public morality, truth and right thinking in the media (especially the self-absorbed Mike Carlton who is never short of a dose of personal rancour for anyone with an aristocratic title -- in this instance inherited -- who happens to disagree with His Omniscience but who strangely has nothing critical to say of decidedly pinko members of the nouvelle aristocratie such as "Baroness" Amos). Sadly I'm not surprised at any of this. The Australian media for the most part is about as unprincipled and partisan as they come.
If "Baroness" Amos really believed in the value of democracy, she would never have made the comments she did. And if our journalists really believed in the value of democracy they would take "Baroness" Amos to task for her improper intrusions into the Australian democratic process. Sadly most of our journalists are nowhere near that principled. The media get full marks from me for taking the US ambassador to task in 2003 for his criticism of Mark Latham. The US ambassador was sticking his nose where it didn't belong and interfering in the Australian democratic process by publicly criticising an elected member of of the Australian House of Representatives is not his job. But this time the media failed abysmally in their task. They should likewise have taken "Baroness" Amos to task for her inappropriate meddling in the Australian democratic process.
One's view on the truth or otherwise of AGW is completely beside the point and I would hope that those who believe in AGW but are friends of democracy would be incensed at the behaviour of "Baroness" Amos. Imagine the reaction by the pro-AGW side (whether in Australia, the UK or elsewhere) if a foreign ambassador had done what Amos had done but instead took the opposite line telling her host nation to "move on" from its obsession with Anthropogenic Global Warming and accept the position that climate change is not caused by human beings and that debates about emissions targets are therefore a waste of time!!! There would be outrage and the media would be unforgiving on any diplomat who dared to make such a comment or anyone who tried to defend her. If only the media were as principled in criticising such abuses when coming from the other side.
If "Baroness" Amos really believed in the value of democracy, she would never have made the comments she did. And if our journalists really believed in the value of democracy they would take "Baroness" Amos to task for her improper intrusions into the Australian democratic process. Sadly most of our journalists are nowhere near that principled. The media get full marks from me for taking the US ambassador to task in 2003 for his criticism of Mark Latham. The US ambassador was sticking his nose where it didn't belong and interfering in the Australian democratic process by publicly criticising an elected member of of the Australian House of Representatives is not his job. But this time the media failed abysmally in their task. They should likewise have taken "Baroness" Amos to task for her inappropriate meddling in the Australian democratic process.
One's view on the truth or otherwise of AGW is completely beside the point and I would hope that those who believe in AGW but are friends of democracy would be incensed at the behaviour of "Baroness" Amos. Imagine the reaction by the pro-AGW side (whether in Australia, the UK or elsewhere) if a foreign ambassador had done what Amos had done but instead took the opposite line telling her host nation to "move on" from its obsession with Anthropogenic Global Warming and accept the position that climate change is not caused by human beings and that debates about emissions targets are therefore a waste of time!!! There would be outrage and the media would be unforgiving on any diplomat who dared to make such a comment or anyone who tried to defend her. If only the media were as principled in criticising such abuses when coming from the other side.
0 comments:
Post a Comment