There has been an almost total irony bypass at the”Pure Play-school” site in the Crikey stable and one of the bee’s in the bonnet of our learned friend is the way that Authors at the “The Punch” don’t always fully declare their affiliations
Hutt is right to be angry, and this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his main job as NSW Director for the Australian Christian Lobby, which must be why he doesn’t mention his links to the lobby group most self-interested in maintaining its stranglehold on education, and why the details are only available if you click on his name to read the bio (on a separate link). If you don’t think to check, you’ll never know. Anyway, it’s entirely ethical to omit critical details to misleadingly alter readers’ approach to your argument if it’s FOR JESUS.
OK that sounds like a reasonable exposition of principle and you would have to think that a man of such lofty principle would try very hard to live them himself now wouldn’t you?
But look to the comments thread to the Punch piece and look what you will find:
Surely it is extremely hypocritical to complain about David Hutt not declaring his vested interest in propagating Christianity while he himself does not even declare his full name and affiliation when he comments on the pieces at the Punch?
But this is not the only time that our learned friend has done this sort of thing in fact if you check out other threads at the Punch and the chances are that if you find a comment or three under the name “Jeremy”, like this one:
Then it is almost certainly our learned friend making precisely the same arguments that he always does about the issues in question at his own blog or at Crikey but failing rather notably to declare just who he is and just what his affiliations actually are.. Funny isn’t that precisely what he is chiding David Hutt for????
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
“our learned fiend“ (my bold)
I presume that was a typo, Iain. Funny though.
As for the post, I think his point about Hutt’s non-declaration of affiliation is nitpicking in the extreme. For ‘Christ’s’ sake, it’s just an opinion piece @ The Punch and it hardly qualifies as the “intellectual dishonesty” of the mainstream media, which is PP’s stated mission and reason to be. I’d call J’s post a pedantic rant, quite frankly.
As for the issue highlighted in your example, Jeremy’s advocacy of proportional representation in the lower house would see a generic style of candidate elected on a faceless ticket. People who are not actually directly accountable as individuals, only as a group. They’d be like interchangeable robots.
I think the present system of one member per seat is far better – the only change I’d advocate is that directing preferences by how-to-vote cards should go. Then people would have to think about who to put 2nd, 3rd etc and we’d get a result that more truly relects voter intentions.
Typo fixed (thanks for that)
Hutt’s afilliations are there for anyone to check by simply clicking on to his profile link in his name, Unlike Jeremy who posts no link and by sailing under just his given name deliberately tries to hide who he is and his own vested interests and affiliation, It is Gross hypocrisy.
I think that hardly anyone has too much trouble with How to vote in the lower house seats because there is seldom more than a handful of candidates But in the senate (speaking federally) when there have been more than a hundred boxes to fill in in some states HTV cards do have some merit. Up here in Queensland we have “optional” preferential voting where you can number every box or just vote “!” and it was the later option that peter Beattie exploited when the Libs and Nats were very disunited up here. Now that Labor is in big trouble up here and think that they will desperately need Green preferences the Bligh government is very afraid that optional preferential voting will be a rod for her own back.
Proportional representation just lead to very weak governments like the one in Greece or in Italy and frankly I think we have teh best of both world here with PH in our house of review and direct single member electorates for the lower house
Jeez….is this blog is totally obsessed with “Jeremy….” or what?
He is such a rich example of the worst excesses of the Latte sipper mindset Eric
That said surely you are not going to defend his hypocrisy here now are you?
What do you suggest, Eric? That jeremy’s obsessive posting and highly opinionated views should go without fair comment? That he should be exempted? He puts himself out there he gets reactions – it’s as simple as that. Btw, don’t you think PP (& Jeremy) is rather obsessed with Andrew Bolt? You don’t say anything about that. I agree Jeremy has a right to ‘belt Bolt’ if he wants to. Likewise Iain has a right to counter what Jeremy says. It’s not like he goes post for post.
Don’t forget me. I’m the one who has the dubious honor of being the first person on this blog he has threatened to sue over a post written about him.
You should have left the typo stand Iain, I thought it was rather apposite.
I thought the typo was intentional….I’m disappointed to say the least
GD
In this litigious age I certainly would not suggest that our learned friend is anything other than a fine upstanding gentleman…… Who has some loopy ideas.
🙂
Leon
sorry to burst your bubble but he has threatened to sue me before
Ray
You are dead right because as a “professional” writer for Crikey Jezza is just as much a legitimate topic of scrutiny as Andrew Bolt.
Well he’s not a “professional” writer in the same way that Bolt is – writing for PP & Crikey is hardly a full time occupation and still very much in the amateur blog league. But the blogoshpere has always fed off itself and given the amount of highly opinionated posts he puts out – and the always polemic ‘I am right, you are wrong’ style – it’s not surprising that others such as yourself give him a bit of curry.
Well Ray he is very keen to suggest that those who are paid to blog are in some sense higher up the food chain than those ,like myself , who do it for fun.
Want to be paid to blog, Iain? Just add Google ads to your existing blog. You get enough hits to warrant it. And you’ll probably make as much as the PP boys do. You know, about $3.75 per month.
Wow all of $3.75?????
heck that might just buy me most of a latte!!!! then I could be corrupted with the evils of leftism !!!
You know, given how popular lattes are, Iain, the great majority of people out there are by your definition “lefties”.
All fish swim, this all thet swim are fish?
Ah you are right about Lattes being popular but the problem only really arises if you sip them in a trendy cafes in the inner city where they preform bizarre rituals and add large servings of sanctimony and hubris 😉
Have a look at the learned gentleman’s tirade against free speech.
Apparently “free” refers to the amount of money you spend on it.
If you spend money to tell your story then it isn’t free speech at all.
Are you referring to the post about “exclusion zones” around polling booths Charlie?
because this very good comment totally demolishes Jezza’s argument:
Yep saw that.
Interesting that JS is so ready to restrict freedoms of those he disagrees with.
[…] SKEPTICAL JOURNALIST F…Ray Dixon on Should we care about, or celeb…Charlie Milburn on Pure Playschool Pundit Punch-D…Charlie Milburn on Should we care about, or celeb…Ray Dixon on Should we care about, or […]