The truth on that was very interesting: the government wouldn't permit the release of the official footage. The grainy footage you saw came from CNN, who were first told by Australian officials that they wouldn't be allowed to take any cameras in but were then allowed to when the White House intervened. Channel 10 made a passing mention of the footage coming from CNN but didn't explain the full story. The ABC coverage I saw didn't attempt to explain it at all. Margo Kingston tells the full story over on her Webdiary site (scroll down to the par "If he'd had his way...") and while she flavours it with her political opinions, her relaying of the facts indicates that Howard did his best to manipulate the media coverage of the day. It's a shame she seems to be the only person pointing out how the media coverage was managed, the others seemed to have routed around it as best they can and moved on.
The invite list for the bbq at the Lodge was a joke. No Labor members were invited (not even Simon Crean) but lightweight celebrities like Steve Irwin and Lleyton Hewitt were somehow deemed appropriate. It seems strange that TV stars and sportspeople are given more opportunity to interact with the US President than a broad cross-section of our elected Parliament. Crean wasn't even invited to join Howard and Bush when they toddled off to the War Memorial.
What did I think of Bob Brown interrupting the president? It was rude, it was impolite and it seemed utterly necessary. Was there any other opportunity for Bush to be told what a significant number of Australians felt? He was kept away from protesters and the Opposition was granted very little access. Crean's speech was a little limp, pointing out that his side of the House was opposed to the Iraq war but not necessarily pointing out that the anti-war protests back in February were amongst the largest ever seen in Australia. Brown getting up was a little like the child pointing out the emperor had no clothes: if he didn't say something, who would? Bush had been prepared for the possibility and his "I love free speech" quip struck me as merely a repeat of what he said to Laurie Oakes last week. The quip also rang false because Brown was being asked to vacate the chamber as he said it, which is contrary to the concept of free speech as I know it.
One of my favourite perspectives on the absurd contradictions of the day also appear on Margo's Webdiary, this time written by two Canberra residents, one a journalist attending the Parliament and the other a IT contractor joining the protests. The bit that summed it up best was a letter to The Canberra Times: "The jet engines of FA/18s lulling me to sleep, the streets lined with police. Thank you, John, for making my world a safer one".
Digging around, I found some other interesting random revelations. There's some mention that Bush was allowed to bring some small puppies into the country, in contradiction of our quarantine laws but I can't find any details on that. And jumping a little off-topic, see this article for a frightening piece that discusses Bush's reluctance to read newspapers, because "The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." If you ever hear that George W. Bush is well informed, I think it's probably better to say that he's selectively informed. Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas also expresses concern at the revelation.
Posted by david at October 24, 2003 8:52 PM