사실

평점: 7.0/10

Coalition
C0507

주장

“새로운 유급 출산 휴가 제도를 도입하겠다는 선거 공약을 어겼다.”
원본 출처: Matthew Davis

원본 출처

사실 검증

**사실** **sasil** - - 토니 toni 애벗(Tony aebeot(Tony Abbott)이 Abbott)i 이끄는 ikkeuneun 연립정부(리버럴-내셔널 yeonripjeongbu(ribeoreol-naesyeoneol 연합, yeonhap, Liberal-National Liberal-National Coalition)가 Coalition)ga 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 제도와 jedowa 관련된 gwanryeondoen 선거 seongeo 공약을 gongyageul 어겼다. eogyeotda.
**TRUE** - The Coalition government led by Tony Abbott did break an election promise regarding its signature paid parental leave scheme.
2013년 2013nyeon 연방 yeonbang 선거 seongeo 캠페인 kaempein 기간 gigan 동안, dongan, 토니 toni 애벗(Tony aebeot(Tony Abbott) Abbott) 총리는 chongrineun 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가(Paid hyuga(Paid Parental Parental Leave, Leave, PPL) PPL) 제도를 jedoreul 핵심 haeksim 정책으로 jeongchaegeuro 발표했다. balpyohaetda. i 제도는 jedoneun 산모의 sanmoui 실제 silje 임금을 imgeumeul 대체하여 daechehayeo 26주간 26jugan 유급 yugeup 휴가를 hyugareul 제공하며(연봉 jegonghamyeo(yeonbong 15만 15man 호주 hoju 달러(A$150,000)까지), dalreo(A$150,000)kkaji), 퇴직금 toejikgeum 기여금도 giyeogeumdo 포함했다[1]. pohamhaetda[1]. 이는 ineun 기존 gijon 노동당(Labor) nodongdang(Labor) 제도를 jedoreul 대폭 daepok 개선하는 gaeseonhaneun 것으로 geoseuro 제시되었으며 jesidoeeosseumyeo 선거 seongeo 기간 gigan 내내 naenae 적극 jeokgeuk 홍보되었다. hongbodoeeotda.
During the 2013 federal election campaign, Tony Abbott announced a generous paid parental leave (PPL) scheme as a flagship policy.
2015년 2015nyeon 2월 2wol 2일, 2il, 내셔널 naesyeoneol 프레스 peureseu 클럽(National keulreop(National Press Press Club)에서 Club)eseo 애벗(Abbott) aebeot(Abbott) 총리는 chongrineun 공식적으로 gongsikjeogeuro i 정책을 jeongchaegeul 폐기한다고 pyegihandago 발표했다[1]. balpyohaetda[1]. 애벗은 aebeoseun i 제도가 jedoga "보류"되며 "boryu"doemyeo 자신의 jasinui "대장의 "daejangui 결정(captain's gyeoljeong(captain's call)"이라고 call)"irago 설명했다. seolmyeonghaetda. i 결정은 gyeoljeongeun 증가하는 jeunggahaneun 예산 yesan 압력과 apryeokgwa 정부가 jeongbuga 대기업에 daegieobe 부과하려던 bugwaharyeodeon 관련 gwanryeon 세금에 segeume 대한 daehan 상원(Senate) sangwon(Senate) 지원 jiwon 확보 hwakbo 실패 silpae 속에서 sogeseo 내려졌다. naeryeojyeotda.
The scheme promised 26 weeks of paid leave at the mother's full replacement wage (capped at an annual salary of $150,000), plus superannuation contributions [1].

누락된 맥락

i 주장은 jujangeun 사실적으로 sasiljeogeuro 정확하지만, jeonghwakhajiman, 공약을 gongyageul 어기게 eogige doen 이유를 iyureul 설명하는 seolmyeonghaneun 중요한 jungyohan 맥락이 maekragi 부족하다: bujokhada:
The claim, while factually accurate, lacks important context that helps explain why the promise was broken: **Budget constraints and fiscal reality:** When the Coalition took office in September 2013, the government faced a deteriorating budget position.
**예산 **yesan 제약과 jeyakgwa 재정 jaejeong 현실:** hyeonsil:** 연립정부가 yeonripjeongbuga 2013년 2013nyeon 9월에 9wore 집권했을 jipgwonhaesseul 때, ttae, 정부는 jeongbuneun 악화되는 akhwadoeneun 예산 yesan 상황에 sanghwange 직면해 jikmyeonhae 있었다. isseotda. 연간 yeongan yak 55억 55eok 호주 hoju 달러(A$5.5 dalreo(A$5.5 billion)의 billion)ui 예상 yesang 비용이 biyongi 드는 deuneun 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 제도는 jedoneun 재정 jaejeong 통합을 tonghabeul 추진하는 chujinhaneun 환경에서 hwangyeongeseo 정당화하기가 jeongdanghwahagiga 점점 jeomjeom 어려워졌다[2]. eoryeowojyeotda[2].
The paid parental leave scheme, with an estimated cost of approximately $5.5 billion annually, became increasingly difficult to justify in an environment of fiscal consolidation [2]. **Internal party opposition:** The scheme faced significant opposition from within the Coalition itself, including from Treasurer Joe Hockey and other senior ministers who viewed it as fiscally irresponsible and poorly targeted.
**당내 **dangnae 반대:** bandae:** i 제도는 jedoneun 당내에서 dangnaeeseo 상당한 sangdanghan 반대에 bandaee 직면했으며, jikmyeonhaesseumyeo, 특히 teukhi 재무장관 jaemujanggwan jo 호키(Joe hoki(Joe Hockey)와 Hockey)wa 다른 dareun 수반 suban 장관들은 janggwandeureun 이를 ireul 재정적으로 jaejeongjeogeuro 무책임하고 muchaegimhago 부적절한 bujeokjeolhan 대상에게 daesangege 혜택을 hyetaegeul 주는 juneun 것으로 geoseuro 보았다. boatda. 애벗은 aebeoseun 폐기 pyegi 발표 balpyo si i 내부 naebu 저항을 jeohangeul 인정했다[1]. injeonghaetda[1].
Abbott acknowledged this internal resistance when announcing its abandonment [1]. **Senate arithmetic:** The government lacked the Senate numbers to pass the necessary legislation to fund the scheme via the proposed 1.5% levy on companies with taxable incomes over $5 million [3]. **Signature policy reversal:** This was not a minor policy but a signature promise that Abbott had championed as a differentiator from Labor, making its abandonment politically significant.
**상원 **sangwon 역학:** yeokhak:** 정부는 jeongbuneun yeon 소득 sodeuk 500만 500man 호주 hoju 달러(A$5 dalreo(A$5 million) million) 이상의 isangui 기업에 gieobe 1.5% 1.5% 세금을 segeumeul 부과하여 bugwahayeo 제도를 jedoreul 자금하려는 jageumharyeoneun 법안을 beobaneul 통과시킬 tonggwasikil 상원 sangwon 의석 uiseok 수가 suga 부족했다[3]. bujokhaetda[3].
**핵심 **haeksim 정책의 jeongchaegui 뒤집기:** dwijipgi:** 이는 ineun 사소한 sasohan 정책이 jeongchaegi 아니라 anira 애벗이 aebeosi 노동당(Labor)과 nodongdang(Labor)gwa 차별화되는 chabyeolhwadoeneun 핵심 haeksim 정책으로 jeongchaegeuro 내세웠던 naesewotdeon 공약이었기 gongyagieotgi 때문에, ttaemune, 이를 ireul 폐기하는 pyegihaneun 것은 geoseun 정치적으로 jeongchijeogeuro 중대한 jungdaehan 사건이었다. sageonieotda.

출처 신뢰도 평가

제공된 jegongdoen won 출처는 chulcheoneun **ABC **ABC 뉴스(ABC nyuseu(ABC News)**(abc.net.au)[1]로, News)**(abc.net.au)[1]ro, 호주의 hojuui 국영 gugyeong 방송사이며 bangsongsaimyeo 일반적으로 ilbanjeogeuro 신뢰할 sinroehal su 있는 itneun 주요 juyo 뉴스 nyuseu 출처로 chulcheoro 간주되며 ganjudoemyeo 확립된 hwakripdoen 편집 pyeonjip 기준을 gijuneul 갖고 gatgo 있다. itda. ABC ABC 뉴스는 nyuseuneun 명시된 myeongsidoen 정당적 jeongdangjeok 성향이 seonghyangi 없으며 eopseumyeo 3년 3nyeon 주기 jugi 할당을 haldangeul 통해 tonghae 정부로부터 jeongburobuteo 독립적으로 dokripjeogeuro 자금 jageum 지원받는다. jiwonbatneunda.
The original source provided is **ABC News** (abc.net.au) [1], which is Australia's national public broadcaster and is generally considered a credible, mainstream news source with established editorial standards.
일반적으로 ilbanjeogeuro 신뢰할 sinroehal su 있지만, itjiman, ABC는 ABCneun 시기에 sigie 따라 ttara 양당 yangdang 모두로부터 modurobuteo 비판을 bipaneul 받아왔으며, badawasseumyeo, 이는 ineun 상대적으로 sangdaejeogeuro 독립적으로 dokripjeogeuro 운영된다는 unyeongdoendaneun 것을 geoseul 시사한다. sisahanda. i 특정 teukjeong 정책 jeongchaek 발표에 balpyoe 대한 daehan 주장의 jujangui 경우, gyeongu, 실제 silje 기자회견에 gijahoegyeone 대한 daehan ABC의 ABCui 보도는 bodoneun 직접적이고 jikjeopjeogigo 일급 ilgeup 수준의 sujunui 보도를 bodoreul 제공한다. jegonghanda.
ABC News has no stated partisan alignment and is funded independently of government through triennial appropriations.
⚖️

Labor 비교

**노동당(Labor)도 **nodongdang(Labor)do 비슷한 biseuthan 일을 ireul 했는가?** haetneunga?**
**Did Labor do something similar?** Labor introduced Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme in 2011 under the Gillard government, which began operations in 2011 [4].
노동당은 nodongdangeun 2011년 2011nyeon 길라드(Julia gilradeu(Julia Gillard) Gillard) 정부 jeongbu 하에서 haeseo 호주 hoju 최초의 choechoui 국가 gukga 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 제도를 jedoreul 도입했으며, doiphaesseumyeo, 2011년부터 2011nyeonbuteo 시행되었다[4]. sihaengdoeeotda[4]. 그러나 geureona 노동당의 nodongdangui 제도는 jedoneun 상당히 sangdanghi deol 관대했다: gwandaehaetda:
However, Labor's scheme was significantly less generous: - **Labor scheme:** 18 weeks at the national minimum wage (approximately $740 per week in 2015) - **Abbott promised scheme:** 26 weeks at full replacement wage (capped at $150,000 salary) Labor did not break a promise on paid parental leave in the same way, as they delivered their more modest scheme.
- - **노동당 **nodongdang 제도:** jedo:** 18주간 18jugan 국가 gukga 최저 choejeo 임금 imgeum 수준(2015년 sujun(2015nyeon 기준 gijun 주당 judang yak 740 740 호주 hoju 달러(A$740)) dalreo(A$740))
However, Labor has broken significant election promises in other areas, most notably: - The Gillard government's carbon pricing backflip ("There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead") [5] - The Keating government's L-A-W tax cuts promise that were not delivered [6] The key difference is that Abbott's paid parental leave was a signature, heavily-promoted policy that was explicitly abandoned, whereas Labor's scheme was delivered (albeit in a more limited form than Abbott had promised).
- - **애벗이 **aebeosi 약속한 yaksokhan 제도:** jedo:** 전액 jeonaek 임금 imgeum 대체 daeche 26주간(연봉 26jugan(yeonbong 15만 15man 호주 hoju 달러(A$150,000)까지) dalreo(A$150,000)kkaji)
노동당은 nodongdangeun 자신들의 jasindeurui deo 보수적인 bosujeogin 제도를 jedoreul 실현했기 silhyeonhaetgi 때문에, ttaemune, 같은 gateun 방식으로 bangsigeuro 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 공약을 gongyageul 어기지 eogiji 않았다. anatda. 그러나 geureona 노동당은 nodongdangeun 다른 dareun 영역에서 yeongyeogeseo 중대한 jungdaehan 선거 seongeo 공약을 gongyageul 어긴 eogin 적이 jeogi 있다. itda. 가장 gajang 주목할 jumokhal 만한 manhan 것은: geoseun:
- - 길라드(Julia gilradeu(Julia Gillard) Gillard) 정부의 jeongbuui 탄소세 tansose 뒤집기("내가 dwijipgi("naega 이끄는 ikkeuneun 정부에서는 jeongbueseoneun 탄소세가 tansosega 없을 eopseul 것이다")[5] geosida")[5]
- - 키팅(Keating) kiting(Keating) 정부의 jeongbuui L-A-W L-A-W 감세 gamse 공약 gongyak 미이행[6] miihaeng[6]
핵심 haeksim 차이점은 chaijeomeun 애벗의 aebeosui 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가는 hyuganeun 적극적으로 jeokgeukjeogeuro 홍보된 hongbodoen 핵심 haeksim 정책이었고 jeongchaegieotgo 명시적으로 myeongsijeogeuro 폐기된 pyegidoen 반면, banmyeon, 노동당의 nodongdangui 제도는 jedoneun 실현되었지만(애벗이 silhyeondoeeotjiman(aebeosi 약속했던 yaksokhaetdeon 것보다 geotboda deo 제한된 jehandoen 형태로) hyeongtaero) 그랬다는 geuraetdaneun 것이다. geosida.
🌐

균형 잡힌 관점

주장이 jujangi 사실적으로 sasiljeogeuro 공약이 gongyagi 어겨졌다는 eogyeojyeotdaneun 것은 geoseun 맞지만, matjiman, 전체 jeonche 이야기에는 iyagieneun 정당한 jeongdanghan 상황적 sanghwangjeok 요인이 yoini 포함된다: pohamdoenda:
While the claim is factually correct that the promise was broken, the full story includes legitimate contextual factors: **Government justification:** The Abbott government cited changed fiscal circumstances and the need for budget repair as the primary reasons for shelving the scheme.
**정부의 **jeongbuui 정당화:** jeongdanghwa:** 애벗(Abbott) aebeot(Abbott) 정부는 jeongbuneun 제도를 jedoreul 보류한 boryuhan 주된 judoen 이유로 iyuro 변화된 byeonhwadoen 재정 jaejeong 상황과 sanghwanggwa 예산 yesan 회복의 hoebogui 필요성을 piryoseongeul 언급했다. eongeuphaetda. 정부는 jeongbuneun 공약을 gongyageul hal 때보다 ttaeboda deo keun 예산 yesan 적자에 jeokjae 직면해 jikmyeonhae 있었다[2]. isseotda[2].
The government faced a projected budget deficit that was larger than anticipated when the promise was made [2]. **Policy merits debated:** The proposed scheme had been criticized by economists and policy experts as expensive and poorly targeted, providing disproportionate benefits to higher-income earners.
**정책적 **jeongchaekjeok 장점에 jangjeome 대한 daehan 논쟁:** nonjaeng:** 제안된 jeandoen 제도는 jedoneun 경제학자들과 gyeongjehakjadeulgwa 정책 jeongchaek 전문가들이 jeonmungadeuri 고가이고 gogaigo 대상 daesang 설정이 seoljeongi 잘못되어 jalmotdoeeo deo 높은 nopeun 소득자에게 sodeukjaege 불비례적인 bulbiryejeogin 혜택을 hyetaegeul 준다고 jundago 비판했다. bipanhaetda. 오스트레일리아 oseuteureilria 연구소(Australia yeonguso(Australia Institute)와 Institute)wa 다른 dareun 정책 jeongchaek 단체들은 danchedeureun i 제도가 jedoga 비용 biyong 대비 daebi 가치가 gachiga 있는지 itneunji 의문을 uimuneul 제기했다[7]. jegihaetda[7].
The Australia Institute and other policy organizations had questioned whether the scheme represented value for money [7]. **Political cost:** Breaking this promise was politically damaging for Abbott, particularly among women voters, and contributed to perceptions of the government as untrustworthy.
**정치적 **jeongchijeok 비용:** biyong:** i 공약 gongyak 파기는 pagineun 특히 teukhi 여성 yeoseong 유권자들 yugwonjadeul 사이에서 saieseo 애벗에게 aebeosege 정치적으로 jeongchijeogeuro 해가 haega 되었으며, doeeosseumyeo, 정부가 jeongbuga 신뢰할 sinroehal su 없다는 eopdaneun 인식에 insige 기여했다. giyeohaetda. "대장의 "daejangui 결정(captain's gyeoljeong(captain's call)"이라는 call)"iraneun 표현은 pyohyeoneun 애벗의 aebeosui 리더십 rideosip 스타일에 seutaire 대한 daehan 우려를 uryeoreul 심화시켰다. simhwasikyeotda.
The "captain's call" framing reinforced concerns about Abbott's leadership style. **Labor's alternative:** The government retained Labor's existing, more modest paid parental leave scheme, meaning parents were not left without any support - they simply did not receive the more generous Coalition alternative that had been promised. **Comparative context:** While broken promises are damaging to any government's credibility, this particular reversal can be viewed as a response to fiscal reality rather than mere political expediency.
**노동당의 **nodongdangui 대안:** daean:** 정부는 jeongbuneun 노동당의 nodongdangui 기존 gijon 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 제도를 jedoreul 유지했기 yujihaetgi 때문에, ttaemune, 부모들이 bumodeuri 아무런 amureon 지원도 jiwondo 받지 batji 못한 mothan 것은 geoseun 아니다—단지 anida—danji 약속되었던 yaksokdoeeotdeon deo 관대한 gwandaehan 연립정부 yeonripjeongbu 대안을 daeaneul 받지 batji 못한 mothan 것뿐이다. geotppunida.
The government faced genuine budget pressures that made the expensive scheme difficult to justify.
**비교적 **bigyojeok 맥락:** maekrak:** 비록 birok 공약 gongyak 파기가 pagiga 어떤 eotteon 정부의 jeongbuui 신뢰도에도 sinroedoedo 해를 haereul 끼치지만, kkichijiman, i 특정한 teukjeonghan 뒤집기는 dwijipgineun 단순한 dansunhan 정치적 jeongchijeok 편의보다는 pyeonuibodaneun 재정 jaejeong 현실에 hyeonsire 대한 daehan 반응으로 baneungeuro bol su 있다. itda. 정부는 jeongbuneun 비싼 bissan 제도를 jedoreul 정당화하기 jeongdanghwahagi 어려운 eoryeoun 진정한 jinjeonghan 예산 yesan 압력에 apryeoge 직면해 jikmyeonhae 있었다. isseotda.

사실

7.0

/ 10

연립정부는 yeonripjeongbuneun deo 관대한 gwandaehan 유급 yugeup 출산 chulsan 휴가 hyuga 제도를 jedoreul 도입하겠다는 doiphagetdaneun 명시적인 myeongsijeogin 선거 seongeo 공약을 gongyageul 어겼다. eogyeotda. 토니 toni 애벗(Tony aebeot(Tony Abbott) Abbott) 총리는 chongrineun 2015년 2015nyeon 2월에 2wore i 정책을 jeongchaegeul 폐기한다고 pyegihandago 발표했으며, balpyohaesseumyeo, 이는 ineun 집권한 jipgwonhan ji yak 18개월 18gaewol 만의 manui 일이다. irida. 이것은 igeoseun 명확하고 myeonghwakhago 모호함이 mohohami 없는 eopneun 주요 juyo 캠페인 kaempein 약속의 yaksogui 뒤집기였다. dwijipgiyeotda.
The Coalition government did break an explicit election promise to introduce a more generous paid parental leave scheme.

📚 출처 및 인용 (7)

  1. 1
    Tony Abbott shelves paid parental leave scheme, describes policy as a 'captain's call'

    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. 2
    archive.budget.gov.au

    2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook

    Archive Budget Gov

    Original link no longer available
  3. 3
    smh.com.au

    Coalition concedes defeat on paid parental leave levy

    Smh Com

    Original link no longer available
  4. 4
    dss.gov.au

    Paid Parental Leave scheme - Department of Social Services

    Dss Gov

  5. 5
    Julia Gillard's carbon tax promise

    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. 6
    The history of 'the recession we had to have'

    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. 7
    australiainstitute.org.au

    Paid Parental Leave: An expensive way to help affluent women

    Australiainstitute Org

    Original link no longer available

평가 척도 방법론

1-3: 거짓

사실과 다르거나 악의적인 날조.

4-6: 부분적

일부 사실이나 맥락이 누락되거나 왜곡됨.

7-9: 대체로 사실

사소한 기술적 문제 또는 표현 문제.

10: 정확

완벽하게 검증되고 맥락적으로 공정함.

방법론: 평가는 공식 정부 기록, 독립적인 팩트체크 기관 및 1차 출처 문서의 교차 참조를 통해 결정됩니다.