3 minute read
Wines
Grape Expectations by Max Crus A boy named Sue for defamation.
The gaul of that pesky independent media group, Crikey.
What right have they to defame, allegedly, that bastion of free speech, the champion of the people, the real truth seekers and well-known philanthropic behemoth, News Corp, otherwise disrespectfully known as the Murdoch Empire. How dare they.
After all the good the Murdochs have done for us for nigh on 100 years. Yes, that is how long the family has been bringing us the snake-oil, sorry, good oil on what’s been happening in politics, business, science and society generally, without fear or favour well, possibly a few favours, but why else would you write nice things about the Coalition?
Okay, there has been hiccups and dark days along the way, but who hasn’t realised with that crystal clear ball of hindsight that they’ve done something badly, accidentally, inadvertently and without the knowledge of superiors, well, okay sometimes with their, um, direction?
Who would have thought hacking the phones of dead people and famous people was unethical? The public had a right to know and Murdoch had a right to profit from such public interest as private conversations.
Okay, News Corp hasn’t always sided with most scientists, bagging and ridiculing them on trivial matters such as climate, but what if those scientists are subsequently found to be wrong? Wouldn’t be the first time and who else is going to champion the cause of the right-wing-nut job, anti-science, antivaxxers apart from Facebook, Instagram and the Proud Boys of Alabama, if not the Murdochs?
You just can’t go round bagging Murdochs, and not only because they will sue your pants off and take a photo of you in your undies for page three.
Who else supported the poor, beleaguered Donald Trump when democracy failed to re-elect him? Who else but Murdoch went into bat to rid the world of dodgy votecounting machines, um, okay, yes, that little defamation case is still before the courts, but how dare Crikey accuse News Corp of being complicit in the January 6th thing? All they did was point out the truth, albeit an alternative one.
According to Crikey, the insurrection was repeatedly described as peacefully; its energy and positivity were lauded by Fox personalities.
Of course it was for anyone who saw it, compared to say, Columbine and Sandy Hook, but peaceful and positive doesn’t mean Fox thought it was okay.
Hmmm, should we start a Go Fund Me page for the Murdochs immediately to fight for truth and excellent journalism or not?
Actually, let’s just tell Lachie to go fund himself and buy a bottle of wine with the money instead.
How apt for a fiery conflict between media moguls? Well, one mogul and a minnow. But who cares about a fair fight?
8.8/10.
Not sure what makes this $3 more expensive than its shiraz sister, but the delicious and delightful smoothness is worth three times that. Great value. 9.5/10. Normally one might shy away from young, cheap pinot, as you might a group of Proud Boys with weapons being ‘peaceful and positive. But you’d be surprised about the wine that is. Definitely avoid the latter. Very palatable pinot indeed. 9/10. Just as you might ask “why aren’t all media like Crikey”, sometimes you find a wine that begs the question, why aren’t all wines like this? The world would be a better place were both true.
9.7/10.
Is the Doctor flat or does the flat belong to the Doctor? This would make a wonderful pickme-up if the former, and wonderful pinot if the latter. Uncharacteristically for an older wine, this was somewhat restrained at first but really hit the spot on the second night.
9.6/10.
Zema celebrate their ruby anniversary this year, how apt to have this to help them rejoice. Good solid wine from a good solid heritage.
