主張
“新しい育児休業給付制度の導入という選挙公約を破棄した。”
元の出典
✅ 事実検証
欠落した文脈
情報源の信頼性評価
労働党比較
バランスの取れた視点
真実
7.0
/ 10
最終スコア
7.0
/ 10
真実
📚 出典と引用 (7)
-
1
Tony Abbott shelves paid parental leave scheme, describes policy as a 'captain's call'
Coalition MPs sound out frontbenchers Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull as potential replacements for the PM, as Tony Abbott prepares to dump his paid parental leave scheme in a key speech.
Abc Net -
2
2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Archive Budget Gov
Original link no longer available -
3
Coalition concedes defeat on paid parental leave levy
Smh Com
Original link no longer available -
4
Paid Parental Leave scheme - Department of Social Services
Dss Gov
-
5
Julia Gillard's carbon tax promise
embedded pic According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a "gaffe" is a "social or diplomatic blunder, a noticeable mistake" synonymous with a "faux pas, impropriety, indiscretion or a solecism". Every presidential election campaign has its fair share of them, yet this year the number of gaffes - or at least the number being widely reported - seems to have been taken to a whole new level. And contrary to the strict definition, a gaffe no longer needs to be a mistake per se, rather just a poor choice of words which taken out of context can be used against the candidate. That being said, we have seen some doozies. The once-promising presidential candidacy of the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, was largely brought down by a series of gaffes, starting with the name of his family hunting camp - Niggerhead - and culminating in the "oops" moment in a debate last November when he forgot the third government agency he planned to scrap. Another one-time frontrunner, congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, also gained a gaffe-prone reputation last year, claiming the American Revolution began in New Hampshire, rather than the actual location of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. Ms Bachmann also claimed the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation, and that she was born in the same small Iowa town as movie star John Wayne - when in fact she was born in the same small Iowa town where serial killer John Wayne Gacy grew up. Newt Gingrich may not have technically gaffed but certainly provoked guffaws when he told voters in Florida he'd make the Moon America's 51st state. "We will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," he said. Then there was Rick Santorum's "I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be." And Herman Cain became a one-man gaffe-machine, including this answer to a question on whether he agreed with the Obama administration's policy on Libya: "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason … Nope, that's a different one… I gotta go back and see. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me that I agree or not disagree with Obama?" Oops indeed. And then there is just about everything Donald Trump has said in the past two years. With such juicy morsels on offer, little wonder the media has an enormous appetite for gaffes this election season. But have we really had an unprecedented series of gaffe-prone candidates, or is this largely the creation of the media? To be fair, reporters being on the look-out for flubs and missteps makes some sense during a primary campaign when candidates are being vetted and tested during a period where substantial policy differences are often few and far between. But is it still a fair ploy during the general election phase? Despite the glee with which campaign hacks seized on Mitt Romney’s somewhat luke-warm endorsement of London's Olympic readiness or vaguely implied criticism of Palestinians as he flattered Israel - does anyone really doubt he'd be able to be appropriately presidential on the world stage? And what about vice president Joe Biden (who has been known to be an affable blowhard for his 40 years in elected office) - does getting a bit mixed up about whether he's in Virginia or North Carolina when he’s in a border town really disqualify him for high office? And is the mere reference to people being in chains really "playing the race card"? But for both Biden and Romney, the narrative of being gaffe-prone is very hard to shake. Once established, just about any speech might contain a line that can be held up as yet another gaffe The media, media consumers and the campaigns seem to be hooked on the political sugar-fix that is the gaffe. President Obama's now-infamous "you didn't build that" comment is only a gaffe if you completely ignore the context and pretend he was saying something he wasn't – yet it, too, is now "a gaffe" – one that’s become a slogan for the Romney campaign. My co-host on Planet America Chas Licciadello has an interesting theory, which I am more than happy to steal: Chas reckons as news organisations cut back on senior staff we are seeing more junior reporters with less experience and less context covering the campaign. And those reporters lack the knowledge to cover policy in any depth, but they can easily write a story based on a gaffe or flub. I certainly suspect there's something in that, but I think there is more to it as well. Back in 1972, a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine named Tim Crouse wrote a classic of the campaign book genre that has tended to be overshadowed by the likes of Teddy White, Hunter S. Thompson and Richard Ben Cramer. As the press bus followed the likes of George McGovern, Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey around Iowa and New Hampshire, Crouse turned his focus on the members of the press. The result was The Boys on the Bus – and yes, in 1972 they were almost all boys, or partially-inebriated, chain-smoking men at least. Crouse found that there were some powerful forces leading to a kind of groupthink - certain influential reporters who could effectively determine the news of the day. Journalists with secondary newspapers or TV or radio stations would look to see what the likes of Johnny Apple of the The New York Times or David Broder of The Washington Post were filing from the campaign trail and follow suit. The reason was simple. Journalists had to answer to editors back at head office, who would be displeased if their reporter had missed the angle being covered on page one of the Times or the Post. That, Crouse concluded, was just one of the ways a "pack" of journalists was formed. And like any pack, from time to time they like to single out a weak opponent and bring them down – often by writing about seemingly trivial things like gaffes. Another reason Crouse noted that reporters tend to focus on mistakes is that they represent something new and different. Campaign reporters following a candidate for weeks on end from one town to another will tend to hear the same stump speech time and time again. The same jokes, the same attacks, the same vague policies, five, six times a day. The reporters stop taking notes when they hear it all again and there's no "news" to report – but if then suddenly if candidate gets heckled, says something dumb or trips over on the stairs getting onto a stage – then that becomes news. In 1972 it was Ed Muskie shedding tears (or not) before the New Hampshire primary that became a huge story, so did Hillary Clinton’s tears before New Hampshire voted in early 2008. In 2012, as there was in 2008, there is a new element: Twitter. And this is where the Licciadello Thesis can become useful. Most campaign reporters, certainly just about all under 45, are tweeting all the time this year, reducing debates and speeches to 140 characters or less. Not a lot of room for context or nuance in a tweet. The 24-hour news cycle has become the 24/7 news cycle, never starting or ending but just rolling from a tweet onto a news website, then a panel of pundits on cable news, and from there into a print edition or onto radio talk show – forcing candidates and their campaigns to immediate comment, refute, rephrase or react. Unlike in Tim Crouse's time, today's reporters can simply keep track of each other's tweets to know what the "pack leaders" are thinking and writing about, and the best tweeters are fast becoming the new leaders of that pack. The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza (@ryanlizza), Buzzfeed's Ben Smith (@buzzfeedben), Politico's Maggie Haberman (@maggiepolitico), The Atlantic's Molly Ball (@mollyesque), and Erin McPike (@erinmcpike) from Real Clear Politics are the Apples and Broders of 2012. That's not to say campaign veterans like Joe Klein, George Will or David Brooks now lack influence, or that the younger journalists and tweeters are by definition attracted to trivia, but it seems to me there is something in the speed and economy of the new media as it feeds into the old, stressed, cash-strapped, time-poor established media that may be fuelling a growing hunger for the superficially clickable - the gaffe.
Abc Net -
6
The history of 'the recession we had to have'
It's a new term that has jumped into our lexicon this week with tragic fatalities in Victoria: Thunderstorm asthma. What is this anyway? Find out from an expert.
ABC Sydney -
7
Paid Parental Leave: An expensive way to help affluent women
Australiainstitute Org
Original link no longer available
評価スケールの方法論
1-3: 虚偽
事実に反する、または悪意のある捏造。
4-6: 部分的
一部は真実だが、文脈が欠如または歪曲されている。
7-9: ほぼ真実
軽微な技術的問題または表現上の問題。
10: 正確
完全に検証済みで、文脈的に公正。
方法論: 評価は、公式の政府記録、独立したファクトチェック機関、および一次資料の相互参照を通じて決定されます。