:: Wog Blog ::

:: WHAT AM I THINKING ABOUT? ::

:: Wednesday 18 May 2005 ::

Media Watch Disgrace

Afor I forget, this week's Media Watch should have included an apology to Janet Albrecthtsen and Arthur Chrenkoff for the egregious slur on both broadcast the week before (look it up in posts below, I cannot be asked to link).

It did not.

What it did include was an escalation of the slur on Chrenkoff, a repeat of the baseless assertion that janet Albrechtsen's opinion of Chrenk is too high and an out of context quote from Rupert Murdoch about the difference between bloggers and journalists, all to support their slimey slur that Janet awarded Chrenk's 'Good News In Iraq' series too much credibility by connecting to its actual publisher, the Wall Street Journal.

Media Watch failed to note that the New York Times published Chrenk this week giving him the appellation 'journalist'.

So, we get slur in week one, and then followup to support slur in week two.

Standard Media Watch tactics.

I am thinking of doing a podcast every Monday night Sydney time at 9.15pm for 15 minutes called Media Wog. Not a Media Watch show, because who needs more shitful analysis from leftie wankers about the media.

Just a happy wog reading through crap journalism that does not deserve the high level of credibility that Media Watch accords it.

But I am inherently lazy. I might not do it. Whatever. If I do I will let Blair Bilious and Bunyip get the word out.

And if I do I will not adopt Media Watch's dreadful habit of calling some guy in a cafeteria to chase facts, and then lurch ahead with bald assertions about X based on the mere sayso of that cafeteria guy. For example, they did a show about some wanker artist who reckons he has some French title for art and that he has had painting exhibited at the Louvre and that his art can fetch $200k, right?

So who did the intrepid Media Watch crew call about this? Cos they smelled a fraud, a bullshitter.

They made 4 pointless phonecalls.

Someone at the Ministry of Culture in Paris.

A cultural counsellor at the French Embassy in Canberra.

A media officer at the Louvre.

And some person from Sotheby's.

What did they learn?

In order:
- there is no title 'Maitre'. There is something else.

- the symbol used by the art wanker is not recognised at the French Embassy.

- Louvre media guy has no record of any exhibition.

- someone at Sotheby's has never heard of this art wanker.

Why didn't they just ring my mother? She would have told them exactly that empty rubbish.

My taxpayer dollars at work, for Media Watch to create a patina of reporting.

Alls they had to do was a google search of the 'Maitre' claim and troll the guy's website. His is the only site on earth with a symbol for the 'Maitre' claim - and he is an artist, so he could conceivably have designed it himself. Plus his art does not come up in any catalogues or other mention of sales. it seems to be basically overwrought 70's album cover type art, at least to my eyes. Yetch, no offense painty guy. But, you know, if he does commercial art maybe that can sell for $200k and it would not turn up in a catalogue. But whatever. I do not care. That is not the point.

The Snidely Jackass Crew at Media Watch did a whole song and dance slamming some arts wanker when they just should have googled the guy and chased the journo who wrote the original piece and ask her if she googled the guy or just published a press release.

I mean, why the song and dance? Do they think it makes viewers reckon they are a hard working crew in at Media Watch? Because they call total strangers?

Puhlease I could get change from 8 cents a day for the work the Media Watchers do.

It was pure spite - pick on this pointless guy and do not even break a sweat actually proving anything and add the journo at the end just for some relevance. Total arse about.

You know?

Is it their job to out art wankers?

Or out Media wankers?

Yeah. I reckon so too.

It was like with Chrenk - they could not call the WSJ's James Taranto and ask him about the website URL. They had to make a big song and dance about calling some guy or gal in editorial who never heard of them and did not bother to respond. And they went to air with that. You know? Natch the next week they scabble around to find something to support their slimey political hackery and they use, of all people, Rupert Murdoch in a quote that is cut out and doesn't show how Rupert is really in to bloggers and blogging. Not that that was Media watch's point in the first broadcast anyway. Their point then was that Chrenk is a Liberal party guy who has never been to Iraq and whose site is not part of the WSJ and they got the fundamental last part wrong.

In the transcript about the arts wanker - and no I am not going to link to that crap show's site - is this priceless line: 'We don't think so." And Lizzy Borden said it with her lemon lipped sneer, the ghost of David Marr alive and well in the presentation. I do mean Borden, by the way. Not for the slaughter of the olds, but for the inability to take a step back and admit you done wrong.

That quote says it all about Media Watch, really.

We don't think so.

Who gives a shit what you think, you arses? You are living off my taxes. Do some homework before you go to air.

Urgh. And with that, Buona Notte.
:: WB 5:09 am [link+] ::