nadine dorries: in defeat, smear your enemies (updated)
As predicted, the Mail provides a rehashing of Nadine Dorries' repeated claim of a stealth whip during the abortion vote which, once more, is supported by the named testimony of exactly one person: Nadine Dorries - the only person who has ever advanced this version of events.
The story also is stamped with the journalistic hallmarks of a blind smear: "it was claimed last night... prompted claims... allegedly... according to one account..." It's the traditional tactic adopted when a journalist wants to push a story that he or she knows very well to be untrue - smear while leaving room to avoid getting sued.
Given the Mail's unconditional support for Dorries' failed campaign, and Nadine's own excessively well-documented problem with telling the truth and preference for smearing her oponents whenever possible, just how reliable do you think this story is?
UPDATE: And up pops Dorries on her blog to repeat the Mail's story and compare herself to the prostitute with a heart of gold played by Julia Roberts in the film Pretty Woman. Sometimes I don't know how to respond to such comic generosity: I'm now overwhelmed with obvious jokes about Dorries in bed with the religious right.
She also complains that the vote had been politicised, which suggests she doesn't actually know what that word means. Dorries' complaint that a free vote had been made 'political' is a bravado display of hypocrisy, given her use of her blog to harass named Labour MPs over their support for abortion (while promoting a database of voting records on the issue so as to target marginal MPs at the next election).
Suddenly I'm really looking forward to her attempt to get reelected.
UPDATE 2: You might also notice that this follows Dorries' normal pattern for a smear - start with a large false claim (the existence of a three-line whip) and when challenged, drop that claim for another lesser claim or distortion based in fact (pro-choice MPs were organising their supporters) while pretending they mean the same thing.
The crucial thing is that at no stage does Dorries admit when she is clearly and manifestly wrong (such as the claim that no NHS hospital performs abortions over 16 weeks, or that there had been no improvement in neonatal care, or that MPs had been "bought" by the abortion industry etc. etc.). She merely pretends that those claims never existed while behaving as though they had been proven true. It's a pretty impressive display of self-delusion.
The story also is stamped with the journalistic hallmarks of a blind smear: "it was claimed last night... prompted claims... allegedly... according to one account..." It's the traditional tactic adopted when a journalist wants to push a story that he or she knows very well to be untrue - smear while leaving room to avoid getting sued.
Given the Mail's unconditional support for Dorries' failed campaign, and Nadine's own excessively well-documented problem with telling the truth and preference for smearing her oponents whenever possible, just how reliable do you think this story is?
UPDATE: And up pops Dorries on her blog to repeat the Mail's story and compare herself to the prostitute with a heart of gold played by Julia Roberts in the film Pretty Woman. Sometimes I don't know how to respond to such comic generosity: I'm now overwhelmed with obvious jokes about Dorries in bed with the religious right.
She also complains that the vote had been politicised, which suggests she doesn't actually know what that word means. Dorries' complaint that a free vote had been made 'political' is a bravado display of hypocrisy, given her use of her blog to harass named Labour MPs over their support for abortion (while promoting a database of voting records on the issue so as to target marginal MPs at the next election).
Suddenly I'm really looking forward to her attempt to get reelected.
UPDATE 2: You might also notice that this follows Dorries' normal pattern for a smear - start with a large false claim (the existence of a three-line whip) and when challenged, drop that claim for another lesser claim or distortion based in fact (pro-choice MPs were organising their supporters) while pretending they mean the same thing.
The crucial thing is that at no stage does Dorries admit when she is clearly and manifestly wrong (such as the claim that no NHS hospital performs abortions over 16 weeks, or that there had been no improvement in neonatal care, or that MPs had been "bought" by the abortion industry etc. etc.). She merely pretends that those claims never existed while behaving as though they had been proven true. It's a pretty impressive display of self-delusion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment