Aug 2, 2011

Stutchbury, Quiggin and the fallout from the ‘recession of 2009’

Economists in glass houses ought to be careful when accusing others of bias ...

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

The Australian’s Economics editor Michael Stutchbury has used an award to John Quiggin by the University of Queensland to launch an extraordinary personal attack on the economist. In a piece today, Stutchbury accused Quiggin — an “unedited blogger” — of “Green Left Weekly polemics” and, while being careful to say Quiggin “no doubt deserves his distinguished fellowship for his theoretical work”, suggested it was a “puzzle” that the Economics Society chose to award him a distinguished fellowship. Quiggin responded briefly on his blog, including noting that Stutchbury had told him he had been directed to write the piece. Joshua Gans weighed in against Stutchbury at his blog.

What appears to stick in the News Ltd craw is that Quiggin has been vocal in pointing out its partisan and deceitful coverage of public policy on issues such as climate change. “The Australian supports putting a price on carbon over Tony Abbott’s direct action,” claimed Stutchbury. “But the journalistic default should include some scepticism over whether scientists can accurately predict the climate decades ahead.” This is the too-cute-for-words figleaf employed to cover The Australian’s long war on climate science and its systematic promotion of climate denialism and rent-seeker media releases.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Stutchbury, Quiggin and the fallout from the ‘recession of 2009’

  1. paddy

    Quote of the day Bernard. 😀 😀

    [In launching an attack on Quiggin’s credibility, Stutchbury has brought a water pistol to a gunfight.]

  2. Joceyln Tan

    Two things strike me in this. One is the persistence of people at The Australian in writng about themselves. It is most odd. The second is the nature of this “debate”, which is set amid the amazing situation in Washington.
    Stutchbury is an economist. Yet his rhetoric aligns his thinking with people who’ve now demonstrated that they don’t care at all about reality, about responsible behaviour or civic interest. They care about bludgeoning people they disagree with.
    And while Stutchbury would not accept the point, hacking a PMs phone is just a step away.

  3. jimD

    Quiggin is very smart. Stutchbury is not. End of story.

  4. Gavin Moodie

    Is the Australian’s position ‘of rank partisanship against the party in office’ or of rank partisanship against Labor?

    Should Abbott gain office will the Australian continue to support his inanities or will it start to disown him?

  5. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    TOP reminder of what it’s all about here in the ‘clever’ Aus.
    Top story, top exposé BK.
    (water pistol without any water even – can’t afford it)
    And 3 cheers for the award winning Quiggin.
    A message to the ‘Australian’ (take that either way) – school kid science that the big time boys that will rule our world, tell us what we will do, like , accept want proven, proven, proven when their kids can show them the proof (let go of old man (dad), it doesn’t want to stand up……….
    The message, the science that their kids know……..
    We are making too much (more than ever) CO2 and it can’t escape to space, its got nowhere to go, its accumulating (another scientific term that needs proving), it must change our world dad, you know after you’ve gone and scientist have some frightening ideas of what that could be……………..
    Just cut back as much as you can you dag called dad (anyway your water pistol is empty, you are going to let your boss down).
    The environmental principle is simple ? when you know you are polluting cut back at least if you can’t stop or the place will be a mess when you’ve gone.
    I don’t want to bury you with your hand still on it dad.
    Now that’s science. Disprove that you pricks.

  6. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    CORRECTION to above — Posted Wednesday, 3 August 2011 at 3:44 am

    Should read….. the ‘it’ is important
    ………when their kids can show them the proof (let go of it old man (dad), it doesn’t want to stand up……….

  7. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JIMD — Posted Tuesday, 2 August 2011 at 4:42 pm
    That’s true but it’s not the End of Story because it’s not Stutchbury’s inadequacies at issue it’s his purpose and his bosses.

  8. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JOCEYLN TAN — Posted Tuesday, 2 August 2011 at 4:17 pm
    You’re right (correct) of course but I love the “……They care about bludgeoning people…”
    They’re merciless, beyond the pale.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details