Akerman’s war on good sense - again!
Piers Akerman can always be counted on for a senseless rant. If you are looking for an example of really bad journalistic writing, Akerman's his latest piece titled "Leadership foreign to Haneef pawns" doesn't disappoint.
As usual Akerman displays his ability to write in a balanced and unbiased manner by starting his article with "A week before the undesirable Dr Mohamed Haneef bolted from Brisbane, the self-proclaimed great and the good gathered at Griffith University to demonstrate their willingness to be used as political pawns in his support." Actually, for Akerman this is quite restrained - at least he didn't mention stormtroopers, Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's communists and Mao's Red Guard in one sentence, but someone should tell Piers that while loaded language may sometimes enhance a valid argument, it does not bestow validity on an argument which has none in the first place.
Akerman follows his normal practice of not letting the facts get in the way of a right-wing rant or to interfere with his near-pathological* need to attack the ABC. He wastes no time attempting to bring the ABC into his story "They were welcomed by the ABC’s Sandy McCutcheon, Radio National Australia Talks Back host, and addressed by Haneef lawyer Peter Russo and barrister Stephen Keim before a torrent of the usual civil libertarians, lawyers, preachers and Democrats spoke." There then follows a comment about McCutcheon's involvement in an anti-Iraq war symposium (why wouldn't anyone like the Iraq war, it's been so successful!). However, in his haste to have a go at the ABC, Akerman conveniently forgets that Sandy McCutcheon has not worked at the ABC since 2006. Akerman's brand of journalism obviously doesn't require accuracy.
Then Akerman has a bit of fun with Haneef's interview on Channel 9, during which he was described as “a shy man . . . gentle for a suspected terrorist”. With impeccable (or should I say impenetrable) logic Piers immediately states "It has an eerie echo in a phrase by John Hooper, in The Observer, who described Mohamed Atta - the terrorist who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Centre - as “a shy, considerate man who endeared himself to Western acquaintances”.
That's right, all "shy", "considerate" and "gentle" men (of Middle Eastern appearance of course) must be terrorists! Why didn't we see it before? It proves the case against Haneef! Maybe its the "secret" evidence that Kevin Andrews is reluctant to share with us. Perhaps Piers will volunteer his time to help the AFP draw up plans to round up all shy and considerate men and hold them indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism.
Interestingly, Akerman criticises Tara Brown for being too superficial when interviewing Haneef. Not having watched the interview, I can't comment on the veracity of that accusation. But I will comment on Akerman's failure to practice what he preaches. Having accused one reporter of superficiality, he demonstrates the same in his article. He accuses Kerry O'Brien of showing a "lack of understanding" when questioning Ruddock about the government's handling of the case, but says nothing about how this alleged lack of understanding was manifested. He demonstrates his lack of critical analysis by quoting Kevin Andrews statement “I’m going to protect Australia and Australians first. So far as I’m concerned, his visa is cancelled and that’s that” and asserting that "It’s called leadership. It’s in short supply in the ALP and obviously an alien concept to Haneef’s supporters."
Yeah, that's right, a political slogan about protecting Australians from someone who is not even a threat to them followed by a refusal to discuss the matter ("and that's that") shows leadership! Some might think it shows lack of accountability, but Piers is happy to gaze adoringly at any Howard government Minister and, like Andrews, obviously doesn't feel the need to explain how the Minister's conduct demonstrates leadership qualities.
Then there is the assertion that "under the Act, the Minister has that discretion and in this matter he has acted both legally and correctly." Akerman obviously has legal qualifications that he carefully concealed from the rest of us which enable him to determine whether Andrews acted legally. Pier's valuable opinion notwithstanding, some of us may want to wait until a court rules on the matter, while remembering that the Minister has a duty to use that discretion for proper purposes under the Migration Act and not for extraneous reasons, such as ensuring the continuing detention of someone who has been granted bail.
Oh and of course his article doesn't explain how taking issue with what the government did turns us all into political pawns, but hey, an article content doesn't really have to relate to the title does it?
But there is one thing that I agree with Akerman on - leadership is in short supply in the ALP. If they keep on going in that manner, Akerman may have to start writing nice things about them.
* Yes, it's an example of loaded language, but I do attempt to make a (hopefully) valid argument.
RSS
