Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Guest post » Nixon, Chandler & The Age go for ‘The Triple Banger’

Nixon, Chandler & The Age go for ‘The Triple Banger’

If you want to rewrite history then hire a fiction writer.

Why does it come as no surprise that on the eve of the launch of ex-Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Christine Nixon‘s controversial book Fair Cop, The Age newspaper in Melbourne is running an article under the heading News out to ruin me: Nixon ?

Why? Well, to start with, the whole article is clearly plugging the book’s release. It’s a promotional (or puff) piece of ‘advertorialising’ dressed up as a serious news story that is clearly designed to draw attention and bolster interest (and sales) of the book … which just happens to be authored by Age senior writer Jo Chandler.

But there’s more to this self-serving and intellectually dishonest article. It’s a three-pronged attack that:

  1. Blatantly plugs Nixon’s & Chandler’s book.
  2. Deflects blame for Nixon’s failures by shooting the messenger.
  3. Takes a free swipe at The Age’s only real opposition in the print media, News Ltd.

It’s the old ‘triple-banger’. Why settle for one piece of shite journalism when you can go the whole hog and score a few more free hits? In for a penny, in for a pound and let good, unbiased reporting be damned. This is rubbish.

The article starts out with claims by Nixon that News Ltd papers were “instrumental in bringing down her successor in the job, Simon Overland”. As if she’d know. Nixon claims that News Ltd “turned on Mr Overland after he criticised The Australian for publishing leaked information that he said could have compromised a major terrorism raid”. That’s utter crap. The truth is that the new Baillieu government wanted Overland out because he was a Brumby appointment and they felt he was not ‘their man’. All those stories on Overland’s so-called bias & bungles run by the Herald Sun – that, yes, were damning – were actually fed to the media by the State Government, who were the real drivers of Overland’s unfair demise. And they were run in The Age, on the ABC and in most other media outlets too. News Ltd was just a messenger and, while they may have only been too pleased to run with the story and then some, there is no doubt whatsoever that Overland was dead-man-walking from the moment Ted Baillieu surprisingly won office late last year. Even if News Ltd had played the leaks down, Baillieu would have got rid of him one way or the other. Talk about shooting the messenger.

Nixon then goes on (or, more correctly, the Age writer directs her on) to use the treatment of Overland as some kind of parallel to the very damning news articles that were run by the Herald Sun after Nixon’s amazing mea culpa at the Black Saturday bushfires Royal Commission. She accuses them of conducting “a relentless campaign … to force her from public life”:

”In the 2½ years since retiring, they have run a vendetta against me. They have published articles and beat up stories saying I am not supposed to teach courses, shouldn’t be allowed to sit on boards, not allowed to do leadership lectures, should have quit my job as chair of the Bushfire Recovery Authority, should not mentor people, and the final one is I am not allowed to write a book.

But Nixon (and The Age) conveniently overlook the fact that what the Herald Sun was running – albeit with great vigour and enthusiasm – was exactly what the great majority of the general public believed in too.

Look, despite what *some* people seem to believe, the general public is not that stupid as to be swayed by the Herald Sun’s so-called campaign to ‘oust’ Ms Nixon. We all know that they put a slant on many of their lead stories but we all sat through those live streams of Christine Nixon giving evidence and being cross-examined (twice) quite brilliantly at the Royal Commission, or at least we saw large excerpts of them on our TVs. And boy, did that speak for itself or what?

And, exactly what political agenda does Ms Nixon (and The Age) think News Ltd had in wanting her out? How was that in any way political or biased? Wasn’t the real problem that John Brumby, in a rather bizarre move, chose not to sack Ms Nixon following her self-inflicted downfall and, instead, appointed her to another highly paid position ($380,000 per year, I believe) to head up the bushfire recovery task force? Of course it was. The public was rightfully outraged by this slap in the face. To think that Nixon should be further rewarded, despite her obvious shortcomings, was too much for most fair-minded people to bear, and the hard-hitting Herald Sun articles certainly reflected that.

Sure, according to many bushfire victims, Nixon did a good job in the recovery (although according to just as many others, she didn’t) but that was not, and is not, the point. The point is that most people believed she should not have been given that job in the first place and, instead, cut off from the public purse to make her own way in the private world (with a bloody big payout of course).

But it doesn’t stop there. No, The Age somehow manages to relate all this back to what is taking place in the UK:

Ms Nixon said what had emerged overseas following the News of the World hacking scandal was that News Ltd tries to intimidate people who get in its way. ”They make people fearful of saying anything in case they have the [News Ltd] guns targeted at them. Against me they used vehicles like the Police Association to fire the bullets. The person who loads the gun is the Herald Sun and The Australian.”

Oh, yeah, drag in the entirely unrelated British hacking scandal to suggest the Evil Empire was after her too. Maybe they hacked her mobile phone that she switched off for three hours when she went out to dinner while the State burned and people died? And hasn’t she got something wrong in that statement above? Is she seriously suggesting that News Ltd tells the Police Association what to do and say in public? Wouldn’t it be more the other way around? Wouldn’t it be the self-serving Police Association (a sort of union and a most unimpressive body, I agree) that would feed stories to the media and let them run with it to suit their own ends? I think so.

And then, to top it all off, the article attempts to back up Nixon’s claims of News Ltd’s so-called campaign against her by quoting whole slabs of excerpts from Chandler’s book, such as below, which sounds like they’re appealing to their own authority:

In her book she reflects how Herald Sun editor Simon Pristel rang her media person one night at 6 o’clock during the Bushfires Royal Commission and asked if it was true that on the night of Black Saturday she had held a party at home to celebrate her departure from Victoria Police. The spokeswoman told him it was not true, but that Ms Nixon had gone to a local hotel for a quick meal with her husband, her father and a friend.

”It was a fishing exercise. Pristel was still quite new to the job, and one of the trademarks of his editorship would be to bring to the Herald Sun – once distinguished by its concise, straight-bat coverage of issues – more of the shrill Fleet Street ‘red top’ tabloid formula of ‘name and shame’ campaigning,” she wrote.

”It would cast itself as moral arbiter. Such a culture can have little regard for fairness, or for nuance, and a lot to do with selling newspapers and, sometimes, with pursuing its own agendas.

Or maybe Pristel was onto something. At her first appearance at the Royal Commission Nixon failed to disclose that she had left her post early and ‘gone to a pub’ for dinner, so obviously Pristel’s call was made after that first appearance. If he was fishing then that’s exactly what he should have been doing as a professional and thorough journalist – looking for the truth. So what if he asked if she held a party at home and got that bit wrong? He was onto something and it came out … in her ‘media person’s’ response AND under further cross-examination. The HeraldSun had every right (and indeed a duty) to pursue the question of Nixon’s exact whereabouts on Black Saturday after she failed to disclose it the first time .. under oath!

And this excerpt from Chandler’s book is so self-pitying and self-aggrandizing that it’s almost sickening:

”In the wake of the royal commission, I was informed by sources that the Herald Sun had told them unequivocally that they would see me brought down, the attacks would continue until I quit or was sacked. By now, the paper was heavily invested in demonising me to its audience, and so my pursuit also became a matter of editorial ego. The prize would be my scalp.”

Yes, I too wanted to see Nixon “brought down”. She certainly should have quit before she did and I reckon the great majority of the Victorian population felt the same way … and they certainly didn’t need the Herald Sun to spell it out for them. Nixon demonised herself while the paper simply gave its ‘audience’ what they wanted to hear. What nearly everyone wanted to hear.

But this excerpt from Chandler’s book takes the cake. Here Nixon and Chandler attempt to paint the Royal Commission as “failing” in its outcomes, the implication (of course) being that their findings about her leadership were also wrong:

In the book, Ms Nixon says she believed the Bushfires Royal Commission had failed to achieve its aim of producing better leadership. Instead, it was likely to lead to risk-averse management, with leaders constantly on the lookout to ”cover their arse” during a disaster. ”This is dangerous. Such thinking might dissuade leaders, whether at the political level, in the crisis room, or out at the fire front, from bold and brave decisions in the moment.”

So it wasn’t her fault? She made “bold & brave decisions” on the day? What, like getting her hair done, keeping a private appointment and, of course … dinner.

Well, at least the Royal Commission (and The Age) finally got something right. The article finishes with this telling paragraph. I guess even The Age did not have the audacity to leave this out and, besides, they’d already achieved their objectives of flogging the book, whitewashing Nixon’s record and sticking it to the opposition. The truth doesn’t get in the way of this story because it only appears at the very end:

The commission found that Ms Nixon’s approach to emergency co-ordination during Black Saturday ”left much to be desired” and condemned her performance as ”hands off”. It said she should not have left emergency headquarters at dinner time, particularly when she had no deputy acting in her place.

And that speaks for itself. Not even a senior writer could bend that truth.

I am no fan of News Ltd and I agree that the Herald Sun in particular does run agendas. I just disagree with others on their impact on the public at large and especially the impact they have on things like election results. We ALWAYS get the government we want and deserve – that’s our history. But give me a break: For Nixon, Chandler and The Age to suggest that News Ltd were almost solely responsible for Ms Nixon’s so-called woes (and I bet she’s doing it real tough) is nothing more than one media outlet taking a free swipe at its major opposition. It’s self-serving crap – in more ways than one.

Oh, the article also carries a readers’ poll that says: Was Christine Nixon given a fair go by the media? Please select an answer. Yes/No

But I’d like to add a few more:

  1. Has Christine Nixon’s book (that was written by an Age journalist) been given one almighty leg up and a great big free plug by The Age?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  2. Do you think News Ltd’s reports on Nixon in the aftermath of the Black Saturday Royal Commission where she admitted failing her duties were a reasonable reflection of general community sentiment?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  3. Is The Age trying to stick it to its opposition News Ltd with this self-serving article?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  4. Is Christine Nixon a screaming hypocrite to blame the media for her poor image while using another paper to enhance it?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  5. Are Christine Nixon, Jo Chandler & The Age ‘shooting the messenger’ by claiming that News Ltd “ruined her”?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  6. Would you buy Christine Nixon’s/Jo Chandler’s self-serving book Fair Cop?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No
  7. If “yes”, how much would you pay for it?
    Please select an answer. $40, $30, $20, $10, $5, $1, Nothing – you’d have to pay me to read it.
  8. Has the author of Nixon’s book, Age journalist Jo Chandler, ever written anything worth reading?
    Please select an answer. Yes/No/Jo who?

.


53 Comments

  1. Iain Hall says:

    If only Nixon had been as thorough in her handling of the black Saturday bushfire as you have been here Ray then she might not have been so despised for her negligence.
    Very well done that man!

  2. Craigy says:

    ”Nixon demonised herself while the paper simply gave its ‘audience’ what they wanted to hear. What nearly everyone wanted to hear.”

    Except for the people who were in the fire zone, who she was doing a great job to help while being attacked by her political opponents who have no shame

    I had to chase off reporters from the Australian, having given them an interview, when they managed to sneak past the police road blocks and turned up at the house we were staying in inside the fire impact area.

    While their reporting was sympathetic, they had no trouble pushing past the law to get the story and had no trouble knocking on the door of people going through the loss of their home, community and most of their friends.

    My view, it is time for an inquiry into and increased regulation of the press and proper protection of the privacy of citizens.

    News Ltd has especially shown that they can’t self-regulate or stick to their own statement of ethics.

    As for Jo Chandler and Nixon and the promotion of her book in the Age, storm in a tea cup.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, you seem to be referring to events in the days immediately after the fires, however Nixon wasn’t involved in the recovery at that stage – she was still police commissioner and did not resign or start up the job in charge of recovery for about another month or so after. So she wasn’t “doing a great job” while the media was sneaking into the sealed-off areas, as you seem to be implying. She was doing nothing.

    And I’ve heard plenty of fire victims criticise her too – I’d suggest the opinion of her work in recovery among your fellow victims is around 50/50.

    As for your News Ltd bashing, well, what is new about reporters getting in people’s faces (even victim’s faces) to get a story? It’s always happened and it knows no proprietary boundaries. Be it the TV stations, radio, The HSun, The Age and even the ABC – it happens.

    And I don’t think this story of Nixon, Chandler & The Age pushing the book and rewriting history is a “storm in a teacup”. In fact it’s gathering momentum as we speak.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    You are right Ray the controversy about the way that this book is being launched even rates a mention on the ABC!

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    It goes further than that, Iain. Jo Chandler herself has been speaking to ABC radio this morning, pushing her book and hers and Nixon’s skewed view of events. I heard a replay of some of it on the 10 am news bulletin and Chandler was making the bogus claim that News Ltd were using the Police Association to get at Nixon.

    And more excerpts from the book have come out including the highly provocative claim that the Royal Commission was out to blame her from the outset and that (somehow) even counsel assisting the Commission was in on this conspiracy to “get her out”. So Chandler & Nixon are spinning the line that not only were News Ltd running a campaign against Nixon, they were also in cahoots with the independent Royal Commission!?! F*ck me dead!

  6. Craigy says:

    Ho Hum Ray, you clearly know better living in Bright than I do in living in Strathewen before, during and after the fires, having talked to Nixon and having attended the Royal Commission.

    I know some people are unhappy in Marysville, and still direct that anger at Nixon, as the head of the VBRRA. But when you look into it, the problems are in the system and Nixon did her best to get around that for people in need. Some survivors will always be angry, it’s part of the trauma response unfortunately.

    I have carefully looked into what Nixon could have done on the day and given the systems in place she was better off at the pub. Nothing she could have done would have helped.

    I look forward to the ’Nixon book/Age article’ being a bigger story than the Hacking scandal at News Ltd as you suggest. My view, it will be forgotten by tomorrow by everyone but the Herald Sun in a shameless smear and by next week forgotten for good.

    I look forward to reading her book and agree with the view that the royal commission attacked the wrong person which could be counter productive.

    Remember Ray, I was upset with Nixon for a while, but have changed my view since, based on my reading and personal observations.

  7. Craigy says:

    Oh and I like this from todays Herald Sun and its quality typist Miranda Devine….

    ‘Greens echo Communisum’ her headline screams.

    Can you imagine the outcry if the Age ran a headline ‘Miranda Devine echoes Norway Shooter’

  8. Craigy says:

    Communism…..sorry typo…..I am a typist!

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, when did you talk to Nixon? How long after the fires? In your first comment you implied she was there “helping” while the reporters were breaking into the sealed-off areas. But that’s not the case is it?

    Yes, Nixon wasn’t capable of managing the fire crisis on the day – we all know this. But that doesn’t excuse her. And it certainly doesn’t justify the way she witheld evidence at her first Royal Commission appearance regards her whereabouts and actions on Black Saturday. Did you know she took legal advice BEFORE appearing to NOT VOLUNTEER information? It’s an admitted fact. Apparently it’s in Chandler’s book. How does that make you feel about her?

    Look, I wasn’t a fire victim but please don’t claim you have some higher authority on Nixon & Chandler because you were one. All Victorians were let down by her. And everyone has as much knowledge of her performance as what you do.

    And I did not say that this is “a bigger story than the Hacking scandal at News Ltd”. Don’t misquote me – that’s something you do a lot. This has nothing to do with the UK hacking and you are deflecting to that as much as Nixon & Chandler are. This is not a “smear”. It’s a genuine response to the self-serving efforts of Nixon, Chandler & The Age in creating a clear media beat up. They are the ones peddling crap in this instance, Craigy. And I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it.

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    As for your comment @ 12.06, Craigy, again you are attempting to divert attention.

  11. The Other Iain says:

    Personally I don’t think Nixon was up to the job. She was brought in from the outside to clean up the Vic police force, which was (is?) full of sexist old school coppers with some pretty backward ideas about policing. OK she had some successes, but she was always up against it. Most cops loathed her and so did the Police Association. Those attitudes crossed over into the tabloids (reporters and coppers work closely together.) Yes, there was an anti-Nixon vendetta in the Herald Sun and it probably did shape public opinion to some extent. But she is also to blame for this, going to dinner and hairdressing appointments at a time of crisis was very poor judgement.

    As for the book, I don’t know who Jo Chandler is and I won’t be buying it because I’m not interested. It’s all history now and has been dealt with.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    there was an anti-Nixon vendetta in the Herald Sun and it probably did shape public opinion to some extent

    I think this is one case at least, TOI, where’d you have to admit that public opinion probably preceded any “vendetta” by the HSun, rather than the other way around. Sure they went for her, but that seems to be entirely consistent with the mood and feelings of the people.

    The point I’m making here is the attempt by Nixon, Chandler & The Age to aportion nearly ALL blame for her downfall on this media-police conspiracy theory. She did it to herself. In the dock. We all saw it.

    And Nixon, Chandler & The Age are being very dishonest here – intellectually speaking. I wonder what PP’s take on it is? Oh, they’re leaving the whole issue alone. Not even attacking News Ltd – that actually says a lot!

  13. Craigy says:

    ”Craigy, when did you talk to Nixon? How long after the fires? In your first comment you implied she was there “helping” while the reporters were breaking into the sealed-off areas. But that’s not the case is it?”

    I spoke to her twice at community events in the months after the fires. I didn’t imply that she was helping in the days after the fires, no one helped us at all until Wednesday, CFA management, council, state Government or police, other than one or two members who acted on their own.

    ”Yes, Nixon wasn’t capable of managing the fire crisis on the day – we all know this. But that doesn’t excuse her. And it certainly doesn’t justify the way she withheld evidence at her first Royal Commission appearance regards her whereabouts and actions on Black Saturday. Did you know she took legal advice BEFORE appearing to NOT VOLUNTEER information? It’s an admitted fact. Apparently it’s in Chandler’s book. How does that make you feel about her? ”

    I don’t have a problem with what she did as her actions made no difference to the outcome. I have given up being upset about the principle that she should have at least been seen to be in charge. The problems are in the system, not how individual people behaved. The real issue Ray is have they fixed the system, not the continued political witch hunt and your wish to attack Jo Chandler for your own reasons that have nothing to do with our loss or Nixon.

    ”Look, I wasn’t a fire victim but please don’t claim you have some higher authority on Nixon & Chandler because you were one. All Victorians were let down by her. And everyone has as much knowledge of her performance as what you do. ”

    I most certainly claim some authority on these matters Ray. When you deal with people face to face under those circumstances you get perspective on them (and the people working for them) and the position they are in – that you, in Bright, just could not have.
    No one was let down by Nixon in any practical sense, however many of the systems that were in place did fail and the focus should be on those things. This is the point that Nixon is making. By focusing on what she did, which made no difference to the outcome, the RC and the media and now you are not addressing the real and important issues that are yet to be addressed.

    ”And I did not say that this is “a bigger story than the Hacking scandal at News Ltd”. Don’t misquote me – that’s something you do a lot. This has nothing to do with the UK hacking and you are deflecting to that as much as Nixon & Chandler are. This is not a “smear”. It’s a genuine response to the self-serving efforts of Nixon, Chandler & The Age in creating a clear media beat up. They are the ones peddling crap in this instance, Craigy. And I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it. ”

    No you didn’t say the hacking story was bigger, sorry that was my extrapolation, you said it was big and growing and I speculated that I look forward to it being bigger than the News Ltd scandal with my tongue in my cheek. It is a smear, they are not pedalling crap and as someone directly involved with the whole sorry mess I agree with Nixon. If it was crap how could I?.

    The real beat-up and disgusting behaviour in the press was by Bolt with his article blaming those of us who lived in the area for killing our friends. What a low coward that man is, supported by his paper. If you really want to see some angry bushfire survivors, just ask them about that bit of typing from the News Ltd hack. In Strathewen and Kinglake Nixon would be welcomed with open arms.

    Look Ray, I am not trying to be smart with this issue, it is an issue I try and deal with with a very straight bat.
    Your insistence that ”All Victorians were let down by her” and that ” everyone has as much knowledge of her performance as what you do. are arrogant and just plain wrong Ray, you couldn’t repeat those statements in public in our area without being howled down from both the left and right..

    She didn’t let me down or any of my dead friends and only people who lost everything and experienced the compassion shown by people like Nixon can fairly comment on her performance. Do you have any understanding of how hard it was for those who had to spend time in our area after the fires? Have you ever been involved in a situation like this up close? I had a Vietnam Vet (a local) tell me that the war was nothing compared to what we went through in 2009. Nixon was in the middle of it for a long time and it wouldn’t surprise me if she needed counciling during this time, I don’t know many people who didn’t need some kind of mental help and many still do, and that is just amongst the helpers, it’s worse amongst those who lived there. (BTW I’m doing okay, and so is my partner but it still has a regular impact on us).

    I’m sorry if pointing out that you have this wrong upsets you Ray, but sometimes you do have to take it on the chin.
    .

  14. Iain Hall says:

    TOI
    Jo Chandler is the Age’s “senior writer” and resident Global Warming Alarmist.

    As I see it from way up here in Queensland Nixon’s biggest mistake was to think that all of Victoria’s policing could be fixed by making it “soft cuddly and Politically correct ” This would have been fine were for the fact that the Crims though it was a joke and the whole community suffered as a result.

  15. The Other Iain says:

    I think this is one case at least, TOI, where’d you have to admit that public opinion probably preceded any “vendetta” by the HSun, rather than the other way around. Sure they went for her, but that seems to be entirely consistent with the mood and feelings of the people.

    No Ray, I disagree. Most people only find out about these things through the media. The tenor of how they are reported can and does shape public opinion. To deny the impact of the media in cases like this is to deny the sky is blue.

    Not that I am suggesting she shouldn’t have been scrutinised by the media. She certainly should have. But they went hard on her. The fact she was a fat woman who left the incident room to eat played right into their hands. And the public was still grieving and angry and baying for a scapegoat. She was the perfect fit.

    That said, I do agree that she has handled herself poorly since then. Refusing to resign, withholding evidence and now writing a book that seems to blame negative press coverage for her troubles. It’s not good enough. I am also reminded of the time she took free first class flights to the US with Qantas, with her husband, then pleaded innocent when that was made public.

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    It doesn’t upset me, Craigy, I just think you miss the whole point. What really bought Nixon undone (and where she let everyone down) was when she faced the Royal Commission and made ommissions and wasn’t exactly forthcoming about her actions. That’s where she destroyed her own credibility. It’s immaterial what she did in recovery and, to some extent her inactions on the day are also irrelevant. She clearly showed on the stand that she was not only not up to the job, but also that she was more concerned with covering her own arse.

    I certainly have enough knowledge of her to form that opinion. I actually think that your opinions may be coloured by being so close to the events. Of course it was traumatic for you and I don’t want to upset you, but I think you’re missing the whole point about Nixon and the rewriting of history that she, Chandler* & The Age are trying to flog to the GP.

    (* I’d have that view regardless, Craigy)

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Most people only find out about these things through the media

    Okay, TOI, we are fairly much on the same page with this except I disagree with the above claim. The RC evidence was broadcast live (twice and then repeated over & over) without ANY media interference or spin and that’s how most people formed their views, in my opinion.

  18. The Other Iain says:

    You think that most people stopped whatever they were doing to tune into the RC feed and watch/listen to Nixon giving evidence?

    Sorry Ray, that’s baloney. Most people get their news from the TV, papers or media websites. “Political junkies” like us four might tune into those feeds, but we are the exception to the rule.

    Anyway, the Nixon-went-to-dinner furore was broken long before the RC.

  19. damage says:

    “I have given up being upset about the principle that she should have at least been seen to be in charge.”
    As I said the other day. Some will forgive even Nero if his toga is red (or green) enough.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    TOI, the RC evidence was replayed countless times on prime time TV news & current affairs shows. Transcripts were printed in the papers too. Sorry, I disagree that the media greatly influenced public opinion of her. Unlike others, I don’t think the GP are non compus mentis neanderthals who can’t decipher the shit from the clay.

  21. damage says:

    If the system is broken then it’s the position of the leader to fix it. The leader was getting her hair done, having dinner, transcribing her memoirs and had her phone turned off while your friends died Craigy. If the system is so stuffed and she was the driver of that system then you need look no further for the evidence of her blame.

  22. Craigy says:

    Damage, that is not the case, Ray will tell you that in the past I was very angry with Nixon, this isn’t a left/right issue in my book.

    Iain “As I see it from way up here in Queensland Nixon’s biggest mistake was to think that all of Victoria’s policing could be fixed by making it “soft cuddly and Politically correct ”

    Ah… now that’s an issue I am happy to say I have some agreement with you on. That said Iain, I remember being pulled over during the change in culture period, that Nixon started, and being surprised to find a copper bring polite to me……..The problem with the ‘cops are now PC’ complaints, is that we complain when they are too tough and then complain when they are too soft…..It should be a balance but I don’t think anyone is upset that cops are more professional when they deal with you these days. Well in Victoria, most of the time at least.

  23. The Other Iain says:

    TOI, the RC evidence was replayed countless times on prime time TV news & current affairs shows. Transcripts were printed in the papers too.

    At best the TV news would show, what, a minute or so of coverage from RC testimony – from literally hours of available footage. The papers might run a double-spread of transcripts at best (and its debatable how many people actually read them all.)
    So who decides what goes in and what gets left on the cutting room floor? And on what basis? And who decides how this testimony will be interpreted and what angle will be taken when they write the promo or the headline or the story?

    Of course reporters go for what is revealing, sensationalist or what fits their agenda. They’re in the business of getting people interested and selling newspapers or getting viewers. Understanding how the media works is basic year 12 English stuff. To suggest that the media is just a benign entity that transmits factual info from the source to the reader/viewer is ridiculous.

    Unlike others, I don’t think the GP are non compus mentis neanderthals who can’t decipher the shit from the clay.

    You are going to extremes if you reckon that being influenced by the media makes you a “non compus mentis neanderthal’. We are all influenced by the media, some more than others.

  24. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    The police being polite to citizens should always be a “given” and its generally been my experience that they are, then again I tend to be extremely polite to those that I meet especially if they have pulled me over (not that its happened for a very long time). Anyway its nice to find that we agree about a police being polite and professional.

    When it comes to Nixon deserting her post I found it utterly unbelievable That she should have done so, Now even if there was nothing that she could have actally done she should still have been there keeping on top of the situation. Have they no take away food in Victoria? . I think that leadership is rather like justice, it not only has to be done but it also has to be seen to be done as well.

  25. Ray Dixon says:

    TOI, you are assuming that the GP are idiots.

  26. The Other Iain says:

    Not everyone who buys a paper or watches the news on TV is as discerning as us. It does not make them idiots. I am making no such assumptions about them and you are putting words in my mouth. I dread to think what the response would be if the situation was reversed.

  27. Ray Dixon says:

    you are putting words in my mouth

    No I’m not. Once again you have difficulty distinguishing between a claim of fact and an opinion. Everything you’ve said here (and before) clearly suggests that you think the GP are not “as discerning as us”. They are your words and it’s my opinion that they mean you think the public in general are not intelligent enough to “discern” (as you put it) or sort the shit from the clay, as I put it. I say you are exhibiting almost elitist attitudes. At the very least you sound patronising.

  28. Jilly says:

    I think TOI is talking about individual preference. I read the paper but don’t care much for the sports section. I would not be a discerning sports follower, my hubby is. That would not make either of us elitist from preferring a front or a back of the paper. Some people read it and then don’t give two hoots, some take it as a passion

  29. The Other Iain says:

    No I’m not. Once again you have difficulty distinguishing between a claim of fact and an opinion.

    Classic Ray Dixon. You have the gall to tell me what I’m assuming – then when I pick you up on it, you say “it was just an opinion”.

    Well this is my opinion. You are talking bollocks about my views. I have explained what they are, they need no interpretation or analysis from you.

    It is also my opinion that anyone who claims the media has little influence over public opinion is living in a dream world.

  30. The Other Iain says:

    Some people read it and then don’t give two hoots, some take it as a passion

    Exactly Jilly. Not thinking critically about what’s in the papers is not always about intelligence. Some people just don’t give a crap. They are too busy with other interests. They read a few pages then move on. Not everyone has the time or interest to scrutinise the media, watch royal commissions or parliament or spend their day hunkered over blogs discussing the aforementioned.

  31. Ray Dixon says:

    Hang on, TOI, if they’re not taking it seriously and “don’t give a crap”, how are they being influenced by the media? That’s your whole point – that the media has influenced public opinion about Nixon. You’ve almost self-pwned. Actually, I think you have.

    And I repeat, I did not “tell you” what you are assuming. It was my opinion that you were assuming that. It still is.

    I tell you what, just for your benefit, in future I’ll preface everything I say with “Warning, this is an opinion”. okay?

  32. The Other Iain says:

    Hang on, TOI, if they’re not taking it seriously and “don’t give a crap”, how are they being influenced by the media?

    I think that many just take it at face value and assume that some/most/all of it is true and valid. This is not a comment on their intelligence. Maybe they just don’t have the motivation or time to sit around thinking about it.

    You’ve almost self-pwned. Actually, I think you have.

    Is this the same as you saying “I’m right and I win”? Never amounts to much in a blog debate, from my experience.

    It was my opinion that you were assuming that. It still is.

    Yes, and I’m telling you that you’re wrong. Like I said, batten down the hatches if I dared tell you what you were thinking.

    just for your benefit, in future I’ll preface everything I say with “Warning, this is an opinion”. okay?

    The words “I think” come in very handy in those situations.

  33. damage says:

    3 words
    BULL SHIT CRAIGY

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    TOI, so now you’re flipping & flopping about media influence on the great unwashed?

    (Warning, that is an opinion based on my interpretation of what you said).

  35. damage says:

    If you were to say “I think” TOI people would accuse you af exageration.

  36. damage says:

    Sorry I posted without finishing.

    What you really mean to say is “Bob Brown thinks – I repeat.”

  37. The Other Iain says:

    No flip-flopping. I knew what I meant and so will most others. Despite you misunderstanding or misrepresenting it. (Oh yes, your “opinion”, I know…)

    Just watched Nixon on 7.30 Report, she was quite unimpressive. Won’t take any responsibility (not even some) for the bad press.

  38. Ray Dixon says:

    LOL, TOI.

    Yes, she does not come across too well. Poor Christine seems to think it’s one big PR game and the more subterfuge she puts out the better.

    Quite frankly (warning: opinion coming up), I don’t think she even lies straight in bed.

  39. The Other Iain says:

    If you were to say “I think” TOI people would accuse you af (sic) exageration (sic).

    Try a spell checker if you can’t manage the big words yourself, Brain Damage.

  40. damage says:

    Mmmm all he has to defend himself is “use the spell checker…..”

  41. The Other Iain says:

    I save the piss-ant responses for the piss-ant trolls, Dummage.

  42. […] provocative article headed “News out to ruin me: Nixon” that I wrote about here. The self-serving Age article was clearly a puff piece, designed to gain widespread media […]

  43. Alma says:

    Craigy – methinks you protesteth too much!

    Amazing how those of the Left will excuse anything – if their grandmother was murdered by a Leftist they’d find some way to excuse it!
    Nero fiddled whilst Rome burnt –

    Nixon preened her hair that morning,, fluffed up her story telling closeted with her biographer (and that’s not negligence?) that afternoon, and trooted off and was pondering a gourmet menu with friends as people – poor whole families – beloved mjen, women, children, babies, and their property and animals – were suffering the most awful deaths and anhilliation…

    They’d had no warning that such a monstrous conflagration was moving toward them at an estimated 180 kmh.- nor of the sudden dire threats inherent in the wind drection which made their demise a certainty. The greated National Natural diaster in history – and you leave and go out to dinner??? I find it vomit material actually!

    Some Police Chief! Some “Chief of State Security”..(And where too were Brumby and his Police Minister that night???)
    Propping up their own affairs!

    Too much to say Craigy! Stop insulting the memories of the dead! Suggest you “can” it! And give others a go.

    Open the other eye mate!

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks for your comment, Alma, albeit a pretty harsh one on Craigy, who lost his home himself on Black Saturday and a lot of neighbours & friends. Yes, he’s a lefty and I agree he’s gone soft on Nixon (he wasn’t soft on her at the time though) but where I think he really gets its wrong is to excuse Nixon for her self-serving book. As I said on another thread somewhere (not here):

    She has no one to blame for this latest backlash except herself.

    No one made her release a book and go into the media to promote it. It’s blatant commercialism and profit-from-tragedy on her part.

    Actually, I think doing so is in very poor taste and shows almost a callous indifference for those whose relatives & friends were killed in the fires.

    She should have just retired and left it there. All she’s done now is to make it look like she’s (a) unrepentant for her failures (b) still in denial (c) greedy.

    I think that sums it up.

  45. alma says:

    My family lost all – and almost their lives, too – so don’t need any comparisons with Craigy! I am very sorry to hear of his loss – but that fire command unit that day was a haven of disgraceful neglect and fatal incompetence. No heroes there – they were out in the trucks!..
    My daughter also went out and saved a sick neighbour, whose home burnt down, prior to huge fires htting Kinglake – just about managing to get to her home alive with him – having driven through flames and crashing branches to do so. How they and this man and their child and dog got out is a miracle, as is their following survival from huge smoke levels. They too lost dear friends and neighbours – and their whole past memories and memoribillia ended up ash. Not one beloved trinket or memory possession suvived in any intact form – all ash.
    I went to some of the funerals. Our family are recieivng counselling for the first time – having been too busy untilnow helping others to be worried about themselves..
    You know, there are many marriage breakups, sucicides, mental illnesses, etc; All this whilst Nixon flogs some “poor misundertood me” book.
    Let her at least donate any royalties to the bushfire victims if she cannot say sorry!
    If I met Nixon I would spit on here, frankly.. whoever Craig is – I do know, very well, the hell they are going through.

  46. Ray Dixon says:

    Alma, you put your comment under my profile page so I had to move it for you. In future please click on the relevant topic you wish to respond to, not the person’s name.

    I’ve already said what I think about the book. If Craigy wants to reply to you too that’s up to him.

  47. Richard Ryan says:

    Still she is not responsible for as many deaths as John Howard——-he is the man who is responsible for plunging Australia into the Iraq war, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

  48. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    I think this Vid sums you up when it comes to your obsession with a previous PM

  49. Jilly says:

    Come off it Richard, Top Gear drove through Iraq in convertibles.

  50. The Other Iain says:

    The difference between Craigy and Alma is that Craigy built/bought his home in an area susceptible to bushfires knowing the inherent risks, and has the common sense not to blame some uniformed bureaucrat 100+ kilometres away for his misfortunes.

    Some people just have no inkling of things like fate, circumstance or conditions. All they have is a bloodlust to blame someone else for whatever misfortune besets them. Everything that happens to them is always someone else’s fault.

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    Of interest, I see that this post has been reproduced in its entirety at the Kinglake Ranges Online News. They didn’t ask but that’s okay, as it’s obviously an issue of interest to that community. The link is here:

    http://www.kinglakerangesnews.com.au/index.php/web/opinion/105-opinion/1986-nixon-chandler-a-the-age-go-for-the-triple-banger

    The comments are varied but I think “Joanne” & “Betsy” might be someone out to defend herself. Guess who?

    I’ve left a comment that hasn’t gone up yet.

  52. Ray Dixon says:

    Wow, the latest comment on this @ the Kinglake Ranges website is a beauty:

    Gidgit Breed 2011-08-01 14:17
    Christine Nixon has a long and largely successful career as a police chief. Jo Chandler has a long and successful career as a Walkley Award-winning journalist.

    Who is “Ray Dixon”? He’s a blogger with a grudge.

    Gee, I wonder who put that there? Self-important much, Jo?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: