Sunday, June 16, 2013

Akerman sledged for citing Mathieson sexuality rumours

So Piers Akerman mentioned on Insiders that rumours about Tim Mathieson's sexuality had been circulating in the Canberra press gallery for a couple of years. Not surprisingly his statement has provoked widespread condemnation from Piers's, er, peers. Needless to say, countless leftie Twitter trolls are arcing up big time about it. And they're all sheeting home blame to Akerman.

But why condemn him for merely reporting what he's seen and heard? It actually reflects more poorly on the press gallery, in my opinion. Clearly, the vacuous busybodies are mighty interested in the sex life of the PM's beau, and spend a lot of time gossiping about it. But if someone mentions their obsessions publicly, they all go into paroxysms of faux indignation. What a pack of prurient, cowardly hypocrites!


  1. For those who view Insiders regularly and watched the entire show this morning, it seemed to be on Mr Akerman's agenda today to throw any distraction and negativity in the ring this morning.
    Mr Akerman started three unsubstantiated rumours; first, that Christianity was about to be ousted from the national curriculum, then to the Prime Minister herself being behind the menu scandal and then as a final attempt went for the casting of further doubt on Mr Mathieson's sexuality. A true liberal; he had nothing to offer, so clearly went for an attempt to distract from the intellectual aspect of what was being presented. Today I walked away with a better understanding of the Gonski structure which was more beneficial than any information Mr Akerman had to offer. Thanks Minister Garrett...and good on you Barrie and the rest of the panel for not letting Mr Akerman enjoy his moment. What a crawl back speech at the end of the show! He will sleep better having offered the apology. It shows how reactive bitter people can be, but with a few minutes to ponder on what is right (not evident in the edited Youtube which makes it appear the apology was immediate...but it was not) there is a deep down knowledge that bitter people know what is right. Let's hope Mr Akerman uses his intelligence for the good of the people in future instead of the three childish displays we witnessed this morning.

  2. Mr or Ms Anonymous, thanks very much for your comprehensive roundup of Akerman's appearance on Insiders and the show in general. I didn't see it myself. I was just going on the online reaction to it.

    Two things stand out in your summary: As you say, he did actually apologize for what has been widely perceived as his flouting of journalistic etiquette. That shows he possesses greater humility than most leftie journos, who are habitually reluctant to say sorry for their many false, vindictive claims.

    For example, will any of the PM's meeja fanbois apologize for their mindlesss repetition of her shameless lies linking Brough and Hockey to menugate? Not likely.

    Also, you have entirely ignored the gist of what I was saying in the post: that the press gallery have been gossiping about Mathieson's alleged sexuality for years. So for them to condemn those who mention it is seriously hypocritical.

    Are you going to claim that leftie hacks haven't been whispering about the first bloke, and that Akerman is lying?

  3. M'kay. So if there were rumours in the press gallery (and who's to say there isn't?), that Abbott's wife is gay, or used to be a man, or they're swingers, or whatever, then it would be ok for Akerman or anyone else to mention that as well?

    It's pretty obvious to clear thinking people that the purpose of questioning the first bloke's sexuality is to attack their relationship and somehow imply that it's fake or not real. Fits well with the Right's Ju-liar narrative doesn't it?

    By the way, how about getting some actual credibility and try watching the video or reading the transcript before commenting on it? Both Lenore Taylor and Malcolm Farr immediately denied those rumours existed within the gallery, which makes the whole point of your post rather redundant, doesn't it?

  4. Ms (not sure why that matters)anonymous here again

    Apologies if my writing appears to have ignored your gist. On the contrary your gist told me you had missed something as it was very obvious in the responses of the credible journalists on the show that there was no credence to the comments.
    I am not one to comment usually, but am a regular watcher of Insiders and had never seen that much aggression so wanted to put forward my live experience of the moment in context of what had gone before and after the most negatively sensational moment. Sattler was sacked for similar (he said nothing about the gallery), so it is right that this deliberate expanding of the rumour is equally met.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.