Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

CrikeyIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 65yesterday

The article discusses the Department of Defence's attempt to restrict senators from sharing video evidence from a parliamentary hearing. The focus is on Deputy Secretary Celia Perkins' effort to prevent the republication of evidence on social media, which is seen as part of a broader pattern of resistance to transparency. The piece frames this action as an extension of the department's 'pathological hatred of democratic accountability,' drawing a comparison to the Streisand Effect where attempts to hide information lead to increased exposure.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the Defence Department's actions as an intentional suppression of transparency and democratic accountability, using strong language such as 'pathological hatred' and comparing the incident to the Streisand Effect. This suggests a left-leaning perspective that views bureaucratic ob

Why factuality (85): The article reports on a specific incident involving Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary of Security and Estate at the Department of Defence, where she attempted to restrict the sharing of evidence from a Senate committee hearing. It references the 'Streisand Effect' as a metaphor for the unintended con

Why objectivity (65): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'pathological hatred of democratic accountability' and 'laughable Streisand Effect moment,' which suggests a critical and possibly biased perspective. The tone leans towards condemnation of the Defence department rather than presenting a balanced

The AustralianIndependent🔒Conservativeyesterday

The Australian reports that new legislation proposed by the Labor Party appears to block investigations into potential scandals involving senior politicians. This reform relates to the Independent Broadsheet Authority of Corruption (IBAC), which is responsible for overseeing corruption inquiries. Critics argue that the changes could shield high-profile figures from scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency and accountability within the government.

Bias read (Conservative): The headline uses strong language such as 'shielding scandals' implying wrongdoing by Labor, suggesting a critical stance toward the party's actions. The framing emphasizes potential obstruction of investigations, aligning with a conservative perspective that questions government transparency.