Fran managed to catch this image on Tuesday afternoon from the Opposition Oracle’s website.
Not sure if you can read it but it says things like
- “the Reserve Bank raised interest rates today” – only they did not.
- “the latest move by the RBA” – only they did not
Why wait for the news when you can make it up first.
Think. Again.
Think first I reckon.
For those that can’t read it (and given the scaling – I assume that’s everyone), click on the image and it’ll provide the full version
Mean while in the coalition bunker “Gosh Shrek says Barnyard “it would have been a great gotcha” all labors fault cos they have no economic credentials not like us.
Look, she is wearing the same dress again and no handbag, can we use that instead, ask Mal he knows bugger all about the NBN however his wardrobe is another matter entirely hurry up it is almost time for our 6pm news splash.
Lulz
That is just too beautiful. Well caught Fran. The RBA must be redfaced to have got their decision so wrong.
You’ve got to hand it to the OO. They’ve also predicted 27 of the last 2 recessions.
An Amazing pick up courtesy of Fran. If you click onto the image then it becomes more readable.
Basically Daniel Morrisey of the OO wrote a piece suspiciously timed at 2.30pm which was the same time as the Reserve Bank were supposed to raise interest rates.
Morrissey wrote at 2.30pm: Reserve Bank Raises Interest Rates to 4.75%.
Small problem: They didn’t.
Hi Joni
They think we’re stupid.
Cheers
Lyn
I think that the importance of Fran’s amazing snap shot is what we suspect, that some journo’s aren’t exactly telling the truth but basing their comments on suspicions/inuendo or what the bloke wear a neat suit and a purple tie said.
Consider the above. Morrissey was on the cusp of launching out via opinions on no more than a suspicion that rates would rise. Morrissey already had it written about a 2-speed ecomony.
Must have been chasing a “scoop”
Imagine pre-empting information in any other “business”
Does this guy still have a job? (or his editor?)
Daniel … mmmm … what gen would that be I wonder?
No wonder they buggered Grog, you can’t have ordinary people pointing the fact that we are being lied to by Murdoch’s maggots.
Viva false reporting! we are all stupid
NOT!
There is an alternative, that they prepared two articles – one for the rate rise and one for the kept rate. That said, it speaks to incompetence (&/or wishful thinking) that they made this one public.
Still think it’s worth highlighting, just not going to prejudge it as conspiracy just yet.
That is a possibility, Ben, but I’m of the opinion that they really expected rates to rise and wanted to be the first with the news.
But, Ben, they are so quick to criticise others for small errors. It is only fair that we highlight when they make a mistake.
How, could it be construed as conspiracy?
Murdoch trying to “influence” the RBA?
Nah! Just simple incompetence that it was actually posted …
Well it certainly wasn’t a typo. It was a monumental stuff-up in judgement and in the follow-up response to that judgement.
Media Watch would love this one.
I didn’t for one minute entertain the thought that it was a conspiracy. More likely that the guys at the OO have been drinking too much Wild Turkey.
PS – at least they have some in stock. The Café’s down to its last bottle.
PS – Wild Turkey? Bah, give me a good Smirnoff any day.
Oh, I’m not supporting the Australian and their sloppy journalism. They, at best, made the stupid mistake of publishing an incorrect story when they had an alternate story with the correct information.
It is plausible, given their history (and my wife mentioning several “stories from the future” she’s noted late at night from the same site) that they had a wishful-thinking story setup and published it before realising they got it wrong.
At worst, they were setting up a series of editorials behind the wishful thinking scenario (interest rates rise). We know Hockey thought it was going to go up, he was positively frothing about how a rate rise would be Gillard’s fault.
I think you’re right, Ben. Bit like Boy Scouts, really. Be prepared and all that! A bit too keen. Excited too at the thought of having something real to write about to help their lovely friends Joe and Tony. The waiting and the anticipation was a bit too much for them. QED – premature publication!
Just be careful you’re not Massolaed.
I hear you can get treated for that
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
I agree that this is all probably just a stoopid mistake by the oo editors, having prepared a story for each scenario and, once the time arrived, hitting the go button on the wrong one. But, if anybody deserves to be ridiculed and exposed as incompetents, it is the oo.
It just highlights how pathetic they are. Mistakes happen, but the oo are making them with a regularity that is breathtaking in a ‘news’ outlet. This will pale into insignificance compared to the backlash after their mistake of outing Grog.
I agree that it is likely that the OO had 2 articles written and put up the wrong one. However note the sentence where the central bank was supposed to have said that higher rates were needed to manage the economic upswing.
Once again from the OO it’s a comment from an unnamed source. And of course the central bank said no such thing as the rate rise didn’t happen. This is proof that the OO uses the trick of unnamed sources which don’t exist to provide backup for their stories.
Yes, I read that Min, and it did make me pause a bit. But on closer reading, it could be argued that this is written in reference to comments made in the past, as it is cleverly constructed as to be unclear exactly when these comments were made. Probably a testament to the writers linguistic expertise in being clearly unclear over any real journalistic ability. Give the impression that this is what they are saying now, while leaving the back door open for a quick retreat should this be exposed (as it was)
Guess they spend more time these days learning how to write vaguely rather than just getting facts straight.
As TomR points out they are probably “technically” covered by the semantics being vague enough to allow it.
However, I agree – this is dodgy journalism and it’s exposure shows that one can never take the Australian at face value on their sources. And once you cannot trust the timing and implied target of a source – you’re relying entirely on the Australian’s opinion… the same opinion that wants to destroy the Greens.
Which is precisely why, Ben, we need some sort of penalties applied to people claiming ot be ‘journalists’ who are obviously not behaving as journalists are supposed to (as laid out in the ‘code of conduct’).
They are given particular rights which they are able to act under, and, in hte oo’s case especially, they use those rights to their maximum benefit. Repeated failure to apply the code of conduct should result in, at the least, a restriction on these rights that are granted to our journo’s.
Why should a paper, who has a record of poor journalistic quality, and has a stated bias to attack a particular political party, be allowed to hide behind the mantle of ‘unnamed sources’
Journalists can, it can help tham in their job. A politically activist pulp fiction writer cannot. They are using ‘he said, she said’ to influence readers in a way that is meant to twist the actual truth. They are a pulpit for an ideology, not an information service. But they dress themselves up as one.
Just think, soon these mistakes by the OO will be behind a paywall.
I luv the smell of news in the morning that doesn’t happen. It smells like short-term profits.
N’