channel 7 news is a disgrace, page-174

  1. 23,271 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 828
    "If no fair minded person could watch the story and draw a negative conclusion of Abbott, what is the source of either Abbott's rage or the allegation of bias in the story?"

    The source of Abbotts rage was the attempt by Reilly to portray the story as Abbott being insensitive to a fallen soldier when that was not the intent.

    Nearly all polls and other journos agree that Abbott was not at fault in his original comments.

    source from

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/did-abbott-say-shit-happens-or-shit-happens/

    sums it up well


    "Did he say ?shit happens?, meaning ?get over it, suck it up, spilt milk?? Or did he say ?shit happens?, meaning ?nothing could have been done, it was fate, or God?s will.?

    See for yourself in the clip above. I think he meant it in a sympathetic way, reassuring those soldiers around him. In your head, do a voiceover. Replace ?shit happens? with ?these things happen in war and you are not to blame?. "

    even most even headed posters such as Dust and Eags agree that it wasn't Abbotts intent to slur a fallen soldier.

    So if the vast majority of the population (see the polls) and the vast majority of the journos agree that Abbott said nothing wrong why was this brought to light by Reilly?

    We all know the rteason to that one.

    Trying to be sensationalist and it bit him on the backside and has in fact polarised support behind Abbott.

    So Relly was wrong in what he did and Abbott was right according to nearly everyone. (you dig the polls up) over 75% agree that Abbott didn't intend offense.

    Yet in the interview Reilly played it well and Abbott didn't imo.

    Was Reilly a paid stooge to get the heat off Gillard or was this just a mere coincidence?

    probaly just fortunate timing for Gillard






 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.