Opinion

Blogs

An impolitic porky

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?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 3/06/2009 5:17:52 PM | Comments (25)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Retracting a false statement = more deception, if the person KNEW it to be false when they made the statement. I don't think we have reached a point where we accept a general lack of the truth, but I do think we simply stop caring what the truth is, unless it impacts our situation directly. If it doesn't hurt us, who cares? I reckon that's why we accept that politicians lie ~ because most of what they say and do has little DIRECT impact on our lives. Personally, I reckon we are far too tolerant of BS, and think all pollies etc should sweare the 'Intellectual's Prayer' [David Veksler] : "Grant me courage and eloquence to boldly speak the truth when I know it; honesty to keep my mouth shut when I don’t, the wisdom to know the difference, and the determination and integrity to discover the facts". Wouldn't hurt Robert Coombs, eh?

Posted by Abundance, 4/06/2009 10:59:29 AM

I agree with everything politicians say! I love them and I think they are great. Politicians are my reason for living - they are the most giving, loving people and they have the interests of the electroate at heart

Posted by King Idiot, 4/06/2009 1:43:17 PM

I WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS! I apologise to my family and to anyone hurt or mislead by my comments. I take full responsibility for the foolish things I have said!

Posted by King Idiot, 4/06/2009 1:44:29 PM

Good post Jeff. A case in point from the Herald itself. A local credit union opts to merge with another and the local CU chairman is quoted as saying the linkage will not mean the loss of jobs or branch closures. This is translated as a promise in the news piece. I don't know if he was being quoted from a press release or directly interviewed but the word 'promise' did not seem to cross his lips. So what happens if an employee or a branch goes? Is that a broken promise or will we all have forgotten about the issue by that time?

Posted by pablo, 4/06/2009 2:33:17 PM

If our news report required correction or clarification the chairman would surely have contacted us to that end. I was a little surprised to read that there would be no job losses in the merger, given that mergers are usually about efficiencies.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 4/06/2009 2:46:32 PM

The behaviour of Robert Coombs on this matter was pretty bad, and even more so considering his position as a politician. He should be exposed and I am surprised the opposition have not picked up on it. Furthermore this whole Gillian Snedden affair should be opened up to public scrutiny as I think this women may have got very bad treatment from the powers that be. It looks as if a huge cover up has occurred and she has been a victim.

Posted by watcher, 4/06/2009 2:47:11 PM

I agree wholeheartedly, watcher, and the longer she persists the more questionable the Rees government's response becomes. Or lack of response. Perhaps her ultimate justice will be to run against Coombs in the next state election and to win!

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 4/06/2009 3:01:46 PM

It would matter if there was anyone actually fooled by political behaviour. I do not feel represented and have long stopped paying any attention to what polititians say or promise. We need a red card clause in our system - a weekly vote, on a range of matters chosen by an elected board, which could with a large enough majority toss out any elected person! we could do away with fixed terms altogether....I would be easy in today's on-line environment.

Posted by Fiddler, 4/06/2009 3:00:26 PM

An interesting scenario! While my column and blog entry today doesn't address the rights or wrongs of Mr Coombs's ratbag comment, it may be that Mr Coombs's account of how he came to make that comment put it in a different light. Mr Coombs told me that when one of his staff became upset by comments made by Gillian Sneddon at the cabinet community meeting last week, he approached the staff member and said "Are you alright mate?". The woman, who was close to tears, replied "Yeah, I think so", whereupon Mr Coombs said "Don't worry about it, she's a ratbag". Robert Coombs assures me that is "the exact truth". He insists, by the way, that he does not think Ms Sneddon is a ratbag. Or not now, anyway.

And it is reasonable, I think, for Mr Coombs to see Ms Sneddon as a ratbag for upsetting the staff member even if he doesn't see her as a ratbag generally.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 4/06/2009 3:24:01 PM

As one of the offences Orkopoulos was convicted of occurred within the NSW Parliamentary precinct I would be interested as to why the Speaker Richard Torbay should not inquire as the person with responsibility for the proper running of Parliament. It may not expose any wrongdoing or prior knowledge as per Ms Sneddon's claims but it is a stain on the people's house that the whole affair is treated as a strictly legal matter.

Posted by pablo, 4/06/2009 3:38:36 PM

I think your reporter and Mr Coombs both did things that required courage and were in the interests of the reader. Your reporter could easily have let the denial go, but pursued her responsibilities. Mr Coombs could easily have maintained his denial. An admission days after the event probably would not have sustained a story. But he decided swiftly to shoulder his responsibilities. Plenty of reporters and public figures would have taken the easier path. They both deserve a pat on the back.

Posted by Skeptic, 4/06/2009 5:09:50 PM

The reporter was definitely on the ball. But I cannot see how Mr Coombs can be fairly praised for correcting a false denial. You are wrong, Skeptic, is assuming the denial would have faded. It was set to become a much bigger issue, and so it should have been, than merely describing somebody attacking him as a ratbag.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 4/06/2009 5:22:45 PM

Maybe he could be called Bart Coombs! "I didn't do it". A little like the Howard governments handling of the AWB affair, all went to the commission and swore they did not know. All stated they did not sign anything that would indicate they knew of the AWB bribes. So it appears that some Politicians go with the line unless it can be proved. Deny!

Posted by Buell, 4/06/2009 5:54:03 PM

From memory, it was Lenin who said "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". I think this is the Politicians creed although these days it is referred to as 'spin'. However, it would appear that adage has not helped either Mr Coombs or a very recent and now former Minister for Defence.

Posted by MizJasper, 5/06/2009 7:44:39 AM

1 | 2 | 3 | next >