We read it in newspapers, we hear it on electronic media, public or prominent figures issuing denials that are shown very soon thereafter to be false. The denier is seldom, if ever, asked by the media for an explanation of the deception. The denial is often reported, as in Mr So and So announced the $100million sale only two days after he denied it, but for some reason this seems to be accepted as good management of the media and the public.
Late last week a shortlived denial was the subject of a couple of paragraphs in The Herald's report of the NSW Government's cabinet community meeting at Lake Macquarie. The State Member for Swansea, Robert Coombs, denied to the paper's reporter that he had just referred to the Milton Orkopoulos whistleblower, Gillian Sneddon, as a ratbag, and as the reporter left the meeting some time later, having interviewed witnesses to the ratbag remark, Mr Coombs approached her to retract the denial. In my column in The Herald today I try to extract from him an explanation for the denial but Mr Coombs was intent on explaining the ratbag statement instead. Still, interesting.
Does retracting a false statement amount to absolution? Have we reached the stage where we accept not only a lack of the whole truth as par for the political course, but a lack of the truth itself?
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter