Called to Account

"For truth is truth, to the end of the reckoning." (Measure for Measure, V:1)

Gerard Henderson has a brutal piece in today’s SMH, contrasting the pre-election prognostications of various journalists with their post-election ones. It makes entertaining reading, but did tempt me to look back over some of Henderson’s own columns for 2004.

It turns out that while you can disagree with him on issues like the FTA, he’s said approximately nothing that looks wrong in hindsight. However, this could be because his pre-election columns are fond of saying things like: "Latham’s short-term task is to poll better than Beazley did in 1998 and 2001. The outcome will be decided by voters, not very interested in politics, who live in the outer suburbs and regional areas." (repeat for emphasis).

This entry was posted in Australian issues. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Called to Account

  1. Roger Ware says:

    All of these comments pre and post election make me think that Australians like to read such stuff in newspapers – wrongly named, they’re hardly NEWS papaers any longer being so stuffed with opinions – and use that vicarious experience to take the place of personal action such as changing their vote!

  2. Andrew Leigh says:

    Roger, couldn’t agree more. The New York Times is one of the few papers to maintain a strict divide between reporting and comment (to the extent that one can separate the two). On the other end of the spectrum is the Guardian, whose reporting is almost always comment-driven. The Aussie papers do tend to be somewhere in the middle.

Comments are closed.