These Things Can Be Checked, Phillip

IN THE Silly this morning, quality journalist Phillip Coorey writes of our Prime Minister's indomitable spirit and strength of character. That was to be expected, of course. He is, after all, working for Fairfax, where history is as those who record its first draft wish it to be, and nobody on staff knows anyone who votes Liberal, doubts global warming or doesn't appreciate the insistent pressure of a bicycle seat on the back passage.

What comes as somewhat more of a surprise is Coorey's inability to read and comprehend a simple paragraph, which is the charitable interpretation of what he has committed to paper this morning. The less sanguine view would be that Coorey is a shill who places misquotation at the service of his political sympathies.

Let readers decide. Here is Coorey today (with added emphasis):

Senator Brandis argued that because Ms Gillard knew all along the association was to help finance the re-election of union officials Bruce Wilson, who was then Ms Gillard's boyfriend, and his sidekick, Ralph Blewitt, on a platform of workplace safety, she had deliberately misled. He claimed authorities would not have incorporated the association had this been mentioned.

''The document she represented to be true was false,'' he said.

But only two days before, in a speech to the Senate, Senator Brandis said it could be argued that the objects of the association could be interpreted as supporting the election of union officials. ''There might be room for argument about the vagueness of the objects,'' he said.

Well, here is what Brandis actually told the Senate:

Furthermore, the certification provision, section 5 of the Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act, also requires the applicant to verify that the Association has more than five members. Ms Gillard did so. However, the Association, as Ms Gillard well knew, only had two members—Wilson and Blewitt. While there might be room for argument about the vagueness of the objects, there is no vagary about this: Ms Gillard falsely certified the Association to be compliant in respect of its number of members. She knew it was not and, once again, appears to have breached section 170 of the Western Australian Criminal Code.

Notice how Coorey has taken the fragment of a much larger thought, re-punctuated it to form a stand-alone sentence and then deep-sixed everything else.

Is it any wonder Coorey finds so much to admire in Gillard? Neither is capable of telling the truth.

UPDATE: As the Walkley Awards were presented last night, it is timely to consider Article I of your professional journalist's Code of Ethics:

1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.

Anyone inclined to file a complaint about Coorey's liberties with the record (and punctuation)  might want to quote that.

MEA CULPA: Due to an outbreak on mental infirmity this item went up with the author of the Silly piece mis-identified. It would be nice to think the Silly had the wrong byline on the column and subsequently changed it, as happened the other day with a Mark Baker article, but there is no proof of that. The appropriate proper nouns have now been changed.

Thanks to Deadman for noting the error.

The Peter Principle (also applies to dim bloggers)

TWO paragraphs of meandering twaddle lead Shaun Carney to this observation:

The key point is that so much contemporary political conduct, debate and reportage now seems to be committed to avoiding substance.

No kidding!

RED-FACED ADMISSION: As originally posted, this item cited Peter Hartcher as the author, whose twaddle is smewhat different. Apologies to Mr Hartcher