« Debnam only 12 points behind: good news or bad? | Main | links for 2007-03-13 »
13 March 2007
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c532753ef00d834fbe7b453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jones v. Rhiannon:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Trevor Cook
- Trevor is a doctoral student in politics at the University of Sydney. He also tutors in the area of Australian foreign and defence policy. He has been blogging since November 2003 and over the past decade he has written many articles on politics, public relations and social media for newspapers, magazines and websites (ABC Unleashed, Crikey, New Matilda and Online Opinion).
Google ads
Pages
That was no interview T; it was a self-aggrandising lynching, with AJ as judge, jury and executioner. And what an unenviable interview posi for Rhiannon - dilemma of whether to tolerate the abuse or assert she needed to be heard out or else end the interview?
Posted by: Gerry | 14 March 2007 at 10:51 AM
No, not an interview at all. But her real problem was holding an indefensible position. How can they argue the horrors of a desalination plant and then preference the ALP in the seats most directly affected?
Posted by: Trevor Cook | 14 March 2007 at 11:00 AM
Indefensible absolutely; and 'how can they argue'...maybe because the game is politics, not ethics?
Posted by: Gerry | 14 March 2007 at 11:16 AM
Hi Trev; an analysis of AJ techniques by a coupla academics; accuse him of 'repetition of rhetorical devices used in advertising and propaganda', and significantly politically influential.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/03/21/1174153159515.html?from=top5
Posted by: Gerry | 22 March 2007 at 04:59 PM