|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 168 | 28 February 2003 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abbott�s Rules
Interview: Agenda 2003 Peace: The Colour Purple Industrial: Long, Hot Summer Solidarity: Workers Against War Security: Howard And The Hoodlums International: Industrial Warfare History: Unions and the Vietnam War Review: Eight Miles to Mowtown Poetry: Return To Sender Satire: CIA Recruits New Intake of Future Enemies
The Soapbox Postcard The Locker Room Politics
 Johnny Goes Marching OffMisled ArtistPenalty Shoot-OutMore Talk Needed on War
|
|
|
Tool Shed Tory Aid
************* There's no secret to getting ahead in the Australian media; adopt a right-wing persona and take a high paying gig as a columnist. It's so easy; slag off at lefties; take aim at the usual suspects - Aboriginals, refugees, trade unionists; regurgitate 'academic' work commissioned from right-wing' think-tanks; and, hey presto, you're a national media commentator. A former corporate lawyer from the Eastern Suburbs with no media background and big hair, Janet Albrechtsen has followed this script to the letter; bursting onto the national media scene with a regular column in The Australian where she takes pot-shots at the Left with a bravado that belies a thin skin. Challenges of some of her more excessive attacks, such as her celebrated misrepresentation of a French academic's comments on sexual violence amongst ethic minorities - exposed on Media Watch - have met with a shrill response. And when Mark Latham listed her in his axis of media evil in Parliament (Janet, Piers and Andrew Bolt) she threw a hissy fit - demanding she apologise for referring to her as a "skanky ho". In response she has demanded a retraction in Parliament, claiming the incident has besmirched her virtue. But the only thing Latham accused Albrechtsen of being loose with was the truth: "She has a history of inaccurate and malicious journalism, having been found guilty in several defamation cases. In one of her pro-USA columns in February this year, she fabricated words by General Norman Schwarzkopf. Earlier this month, in her desperation to attack the union movement, she failed to disclose her personal financial interest in the collapse of Ansett. Then in a notorious exchange, Media Watch exposed her attacks on the Muslim community in this country as being based on plagiarism and journalistic fraud. She is David Brock in a dress. Albrechtsen has not even attempted to refute these claims, preferring instead to launch a distinctly uncivil attack on Media Watch itself. If an academic, a politician or any other public figure had such an appalling record of inaccuracy, fraud and incompetence, they would be sacked -- no questions asked, just sacked. Albrechtsen's survival is a very bad reflection on the professional ethics and standards at News Ltd." It was this twisting of the truth that informed Albrechtsen's attack on government funding of aid agencies like Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA, that see part of their role as working with communities in support of social justice. In her column Albrechtsen stuck to the right wing, go forward textbook, sighting an ideologically loaded report from the Institute of Public Affairs's Don D'Cruz called 'Dangerous Affairs' that laid into Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA for its work in Indonesia, arguing Australian taxpayers shouldn't be supporting these programs. Ironically, her sister in bile, the SMH's Miranda Devine served up the first salvo in publicising the paper. While it may make good copy for the Tory columnists, this 'research' is wrong: No AusAID funds are used on Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA projects in Indonesia or on campaigns about West Papua. Now, Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA has responded to the latest attack, saying it is proud of its record of supporting campaigns for an independent, free, UN-sponsored referendum by the West Papuan people. "Albrechtsen's suggestion that aid agencies are unregulated, unaudited and uninvestigated is grossly misleading," Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA director Peter Jennings says. "In fact, aid agencies accessing funds through the Australian government aid agency, AusAID, are subject to vigorous accreditation processes and regular reporting requirements. Further, information on NGO projects funded by AusAID is publicly accessible. In contrast, commercial, for-profit companies which are the recipients of the bulk of AusAID funds hide behind commercial-in-confidence agreements and are increasingly non-accountable and non-transparent to the public. Jennings says AusAID's own evaluations of the NGO sector have found that they are highly efficient, effective and give value for money (Review of Effectiveness of NGO programs - AusAID 1995). Almost 100 aid agencies in Australia are also signatories to a Code of Conduct with the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA) which requires a high level of accountability and transparency. Even the right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs has conceded that ACFOA's Code of Conduct is world's best practice. "Albrechtsen overlooks the fact that only a tiny proportion of the total government aid budget is delivered through NGOs - in fact, less than 5% in 2002/2003," Jennings says. "The bulk is delivered through commercial, for-profit companies." But these are facts that do not appear on a right-wing think tank's website. As such, they are not relevant to the right-wing commentators that peddle their wares in the press. Next time they talk about the 'media elites' dominating the debate, the likes of Albrechtsen would do well to consult a mirror.
Nominate a Tool!
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
