Pages

Friday, November 14, 2014

Another fine mess Australia's media has gotten us into

Another fine mess Australia's media has gotten us into



10



The ABC's predominant anti-Gillard sentiment was pretty obvious at times.


If Australia’s mainstream journalists had been financial
advisors giving their clients the same standard of advice before the
last election, they’d be in gaol
, writes Tom Orren.




ANYONE OLD ENOUGH to remember Laurel and Hardy on Saturday afternoon TV (and no, I’m not old enough to have seen them at a Saturday Matinee) will remember a rather rotund Oliver Hardy delivering that catch-phrase after Stan Laurel had led him into some dire, but hilarious, situation:



“Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.”



They’ll also remember that Ollie was always a willing participant if ever there was something in it for him.



Now, you might ask:



“What’s a catch-phrase doing in a piece about politics?”




(Apart from the obvious answer.)



To which I'd respond:



“Well, I’ll tell you then…”




(You have to imagine me fiddling with the end of my tie as I say that.)



It’s because, every time I see or hear Tony Abbott, or one of his
Liberal cronies on TV or radio, my skin crawls as I think back to the
absolutely pathetic job done by our political media in scrutinising his
policies ‒ no, his catch-phrases ‒ in the lead up to the 2013 election.




Actually, absolutely pathetic might not be anywhere near strong enough, culpable negligence may be more apt … present company excluded, of course.







The Media and the 2013 Campaign



From 2010 to 2013, almost the entire focus of the media was on Kevin
Rudd stirring up trouble in order to resurrect his Prime Ministership
and the rest was taken up belittling anything that the Gillard
government tried to do, or giving oxygen to the catch-phrases dreamt up
by ATPC (Australian Tea Party Central) for Abbott to use.




The end result was that, all the public ever saw were bad-news
stories about the ALP — criticisms, questions, suggestions, allegations,
stories about infighting … and catch-phrases, of course. Anything that
was in the least bit negative got a run, to the almost total exclusion
of any of the good it had done.




Et tu, ABC?



You’d be excused for thinking that my wrath is directed entirely at the Murdoch media ‒ Foxtel, The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, The Australian, The Advertiser, the NT News, The Mercury and so on ‒ but you’d be wrong.



It’s also directed at some of our more credible networks and
journalists, including; the Fairfax media, various independents and even
the likes of Fran Kelly, Leigh Sales and good old Barrie Cassidy at the ABC.




The nadir of this was when the normally reputable Four Corners did a piece entitled The Comeback Kid, by Andrew (What-a-way-to-end-your-career) Fowler. This was long before a Rudd comeback looked even remotely possible. In fact, it may have even kick-started it…



I could have added former 7.30 host (as well as one-time ACT candidate for the wacky “pro-life” Osborn Independent Group) Chris Uhlmann
to the above list, but he has been so vitriolic towards the ALP for so
long that he doesn’t deserve a mention in the same sentence.




As for Michelle Grattan,
who appears daily on Kelly’s breakfast program, I just don’t know what
to think. She’s supposed to be the doyen of Australian journalism, but I
don’t think I ever heard her utter a kind word about Julia Gillard
throughout that entire campaign. In fact, she even flat out told her to resign at one point.






At same time, Grattan spent countless hours of airtime and rolls of
newsprint time extolling the virtues of Tony Abbott’s political ability.




Negative Comment



During the 2013 election campaign, I was an avid listener to Radio National, in particular to Fran Kelly’s influential RN Breakfast program.



Over the course of about three weeks, I kept note of the negative
mentions made of the ALP, the LNP and the Greens and the approximate
ratio was around 150:30:2. That means Fran Kelly spent about five times
longer bagging the ALP government than she did bagging the policies of
the LNP (and almost none criticising the Greens), which had a
predictable and inevitable effect.




But Fran Kelly wasn’t the only one. In fact, she was among the more
balanced of them, because nearly every other news program in the country
at the time, was getting its leads from the same place as Fran — the
morning print media, which was (and still is) overwhelmingly dominated by the Murdoch Press.




Who got us into this mess?



So, was it News Corp that led our media astray and got us into our current ‘fine mess’?



It’s not enough to say that our media was tricked or led, because it
should have known better. It should have set its own agenda and gone
through the LNP’s policies with a fine-toothed comb.




But it didn’t.



It should have picked up the flaws in their arguments and their figures, and questioned many of their claims.



But it didn’t.



It should have driven semi-trailers through the web of fallacies that
the LNP was spinning, but it didn’t do that either. And it should have
done its due diligence.




But it didn’t.



In other words, if the country’s journalists had been financial
advisors who gave such bad advice to their clients, they’d be in gaol.




While we (the voters) might try to blame the media by saying:



"Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!"




… like Ollie, we’re also partly to blame.



Because, like him, as voters, far too many of us thought that there would be something in it for us.





It’s not just Australia…



But it’s not just Australia that’s in a ‘fine mess’.



About half way through Thomas Picketty’s excellent (but excruciatingly long) book, Capital in the 21st Century,
he makes the point that, for some unknown reason, income inequality is
far greater in the English-speaking world (USA, UK and Australia/NZ)
than anywhere else. He then leaves it for others to decide why.




Well, I think I can make an educated guess about why — the Murdoch media.



If you need any proof of that just think back to how quickly news of
the immense bonuses paid to financial sector executives (using
government bail-out funds) at the height of the GFC faded into
insignificance so quickly, to be replaced by a crusade against Obama’s
health care plan.




And then ask yourself:



“Which story was most deserving of a good old-fashioned media crusade?”




You might also reflect on how the recent U.S. Congressional elections
went so badly for the Democrats and how most of the anti-Obama
commentary during that campaign stemmed from the Murdoch media. This
negative coverage has been so successful that even respected Australian
commentators have begun labelling him a lame duck.  




The media in the USA and the UK are no different to ours – literally –
because they are largely run by the same man and they too have led
their countries from one fine mess to another — from Iraq to ISIL, from
lower taxes for the rich to greater financial system deregulation, and
from small-government to anti-gun control.




In every case, the ring-leader appears to be one and the same. 



Professor of political science at Sydney University in the 1970s, Henry Mayer, used to say,



“Whoever controls the media, controls what people think and therefore, who they vote for.”




That is a hell of a lot of power for any one person to wield.



Let’s face it, anyone who can get the country’s media to follow them
around like an obedient dog is capable of anything, so only when that
media frees itself of such control will we have any hope of getting out
of the fine mess they have gotten us into.




Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Saturday, November 8, 2014

Sun Six Conspiracy: News Corp sacrifices journalists to save itself

Sun Six Conspiracy: News Corp sacrifices journalists to save itself






(Image screenshot pressgazette.co.uk)


A criminal trial in London for six News Corporation
reporters and editors has heard shocking new evidence that the company
'shopped' its own journalists to prevent corporate charges. Rodney E. Lever reports.




NEW EVIDENCE HAS PRODUCED SHOCKWAVES IN LONDON during a hearing of
charges in the Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown court against six reporters
from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun newspaper in Britain.




Defence counsel representing the reporters is claiming that the reporters were "dobbed in" by their employer, News Corporation.



There is evidence of hundreds of cash payments signed by Rebekah Brooks, the former editor of The Sun and later the chief executive of News Corporation in England, who was acquitted of any wrongdoing relating to phone hacking.



Even more surprising, the details were found in a Memoranda of Understanding
provided to the Metropolitan Police by the management and services
committee set up by News Corp in 2011 to investigate the phone hacking.




The former managing editor of The Sun, Graham Dudman; the deputy news editor, Ben O'Driscoll; photo editor, John Edwards; Chris Pharo, head of the news department; and reporters Jamie Pyatt and John Troup are all on trial.



Lawyers for the defence say these men were shopped to the policeto
avoid charges being laid against News Corp. The court was told that
making payments to public officials would have provided corporate
charges which could destroy the company.




The parent company of The Sun and the now defunct News of the World, including Rupert Murdoch, had worked fully with the police; but as more reporters were arrested, the company became less enthusiastic as the threat of corporate charges emerged.





A lawyer working for News accused the police of attacking the freedom of the press. Another News Corp lawyer described the prospect of a corporate charge as "devastating" and "apocalyptic".



Author Peter Jukes, author of a book covering the earlier hacking trials, has been covering the case in London for various publications, including Independent Australia.
He says that News Corporation set up a Managing Standards Committee
(MSC) in 2011 to investigate its business practices following the
phone-hacking scandal.






Detective Superintendent Mark Kandiah was involved in Operation Weeting that year, which brought a criminal case against former News of the World editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.



He was appointed senior investigating officer on Operation Elveden and said the MSC had been helping police by providing them with information.



“At that stage, it [Operation Elveden] was just confined to police officers,” Dt Supt Kandiah told the court.





Kandiah continued:



Later the MSC began adducing emails that tended to show that the
royal correspondent at the News of the World might have been paying
royal officers.




When I took over [Operation Elveden] I became aware that the MSC
was also conducting a review of other newspapers, such as The Sun.




I knew that they were conducting their own investigation into this paper.



A small amount of material was provided to Operation Elveden from the MSC about one of the defendants, Jamie Pyatt.




Pyatt begins his interview by asserting:



“For a start I have not paid police officers for any information.”




He is then interrogated about various cash payments and procedures around reporting crime, particularly in the Thames Valley.



One Sun memo from 26/04/02 appears to throw in question his earlier
statement about not paying police, noting that a payment of £500 to




‘… pay contributor/police officer for assist on Millie body in river article.’




Pyatt again denies he paid police.





From the transcript of the police interview:



PYATT: Again I didn’t write this I have never seen this document I
just don’t see it and whether that is a catch or phrase
contributor/police officer because it’s a police orientated story I
don’t know but I can tell you that was paid to the …… if you go back to
the story as it says on page 2 of the Sun we offer stories for cash, now
we had a guy ring in who saw a police operation in progress, there were
frogmen in the water, the area was all taped off, he had spoken to an
officer there and asked what’s it all about and the guy said to him well
it’s when they were all looking for Millie DOWLER, so we thought we
might have found Millie we found a body of a teen girl he then calls the
news desk and says that you pay cash for stories, yes we do pay cash
for stories what have you got, I think I know where Millie DOWLER is
there is a big police operation on at the moment, where is it, well am I
going to get paid, yes you will we will send someone down to come and
talk to you, I go down to talk to him find the scene and it all turns
out we have got .… if you turn over the page a little bit …. it made a
1-4-5 for us anyway [SNIP]




OFFICER: And that sort of information is worth £500 is it



PYATT: It’s worth a lot more actually



OFFICER: A bargain for you then



PYATT: Yes it was a bargain and we agreed more, if he is giving
us a 1-4-5, cash we would have probably if he had asked for it we would
have paid him £1,500 for that




OFFICER: I still don’t understand the expression 1-4-5



PYATT: Page 1 and the 4-5 is the spread you have page 1 …






Pyatt goes on to describe his disappointment about being thrown to the wolves by News Corporation management:



PYATT: I would like to say that I spent nearly 25 years with them
I have been in a situation in Ibiza, I have been driven out in the
middle of a desert by a police officer who put a gun to my head to try
and find out a photographer, I have been chased down the Khyber pass by
rebels, I have been all across Africa in really difficult situations, I
have done so much for the Sun and I do feel a little bit disappointed
that I have been accused of this and that they have …… the Sun newspaper
sends me out to do things they tell me where to go what to do and for
them to then be turning around and saying why not investigate one of our
guys he might have done something wrong, I just find I feel basically
very let down by them for deciding to do that when at the end of the day
I am the person that does what they’re told




…. there is an overall feeling that News International is
basically … I don’t know what the word is …… but we just feel that we
are being investigated and we haven’t done anything wrong I mean there
is quite rightly an investigation into News of the World, allegations
have been made of all the phone hacking and a number of people have been
arrested but there has been no such allegations made at the Sun, the
Times or the Sunday Times yet despite the fact that the police aren’t
investigating those newspapers we are all being investigated by our own
company, they have brought in a firm of solicitors to go through all our
emails and all our stories trying to find stuff on us to hand over to
the police and I think most of the guys’ views is hang on a minute the
police aren’t investigating we haven’t done anything wrong, if we have
done something wrong then by all means come and investigate us but it’s
like they are going through everything we have got trying to find things
and tossing them out, I think there is a view …. we have done nothing
wrong yet we are being investigated by ourselves for stuff that we have
been told to do, I mean this is what we do for a living I don’t suddenly
decide to go off and do this or do that I am being sent there and I am
being told to pay this money it’s not me making this up it’s not coming
out of my bank account, the person rings the news desk want’s x for it I
am told to go out get the story and do it then they send the money out
to me because I am the local person and I pay







The plot thickened further in court as new light was shed on the
alleged three million missing News Corp emails News Corp emails, as
reported by The Guardian yesterday:




Three million emails at News International are missing after
Rebekah Brooks changed the company’s email deletion policy, a jury
heard.




Brooks ordered the change in June 2010, which resulted in a large
quantity of emails being deleted, including those “covering her entire
period as editor of the Sun”, Kingston crown court was told.





In a report on his blog last night, Peter Jukes said that the agreed facts from the hacking trial show that number to be closer to 13 million [Jukes’ emphasis].



161. Between 11/12/2007 and 16/05/2010, a total of 9,244,111 emails were “purged” from the archive. These “purge” events were linked to scheduled maintenance tasks that occurred routinely.



162. In August 2010, a “purge” task was carried out within NI’s email archive, which resulted in the deletion of 1,119,478 emails. This purge was necessitated by a disk failure, which had corrupted data.



163. Any email message deleted or lost for any of the
above reasons cannot be retrieved and is no longer available to the
parties. This is because the above events pre-date the earliest
available back-up tape of NI’s email archive system.




164. In addition to the above losses of data, in September 2010,
NI instructed an IT firm, Capax, (contracted in January 2010 to support
NI in managing its email archive system) to purge e-mails which were
dated before 2005. 
As a result, on 30 September 2010
4,480,902 emails were deleted from NI’s email archive system. A
system back-up dating from August 2010 was identified by NI in September
2011. Therefore: (a) between December 2007 and August 2010, a total of
10,363,589 messages were purged or deleted and are irrecoverable; and
(b) in September 2010, a further 4,480,902 messages were purged or
deleted of which records suggest that 1.49 million have been recovered.





Disk failure? Corrupted data? It all seems rather convenient.





The question is, did these emails include information that might
implicate executives and not just soldier ant journalists and editors at
News Corporation.




Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License






Friday, November 7, 2014

‘ Ditch toxic Tony!’ — and other headlines you’ll never read –

‘ Ditch toxic Tony!’ — and other headlines you’ll never read –

‘Ditch toxic Tony!’ — and other headlines you’ll never read









If a Labor government had performed as poorly as this one, the media coverage would be very different.








Let’s try a thought experiment: imagine the Rudd government
had, within a few short months of being elected, fallen significantly
behind Brendan Nelson’s opposition in the polls; imagine that it had
produced a budget universally panned as unfair, one that it struggled to
get through the Senate, that Cabinet was leaking like a sieve without
any wire mesh, that treasurer Wayne Swan had made repeated gaffes and
been forced to apologise and was widely regarded as a growing liability,
that corruption in the NSW Labor Party had forced a Labor minister to
stand aside within months of being sworn in, that Kevin Rudd had
consistently negative personal ratings and at times fell behind Nelson
as preferred PM, that Rudd was so unpopular, state Labor leaders
preferred he kept away from them during their election campaigns, that
Labor had announced it was doubling the budget deficit, and if it was
reliant on a political freak show of independent and minor party
senators to secure passage of its bills.




And imagine if the Rudd government had resorted to national
security in an effort to take the focus off its domestic woes, and it
had failed to restore its fortunes, leaving it still trailing the
Coalition?



Now imagine how all that would have been reported — and not
just by the Coalition cheerleaders at News Corp, but by the entire
media? You wouldn’t have been able to click on a news website without
seeing “debacle”, “crisis”, “fiasco” and “Whitlamesque” in every
political story.



It’s true that in some areas, Labor gets the benefit of the
doubt from the media — for example, journalists are hyper-sensitive to
any statement from Tony Abbott regarding gender issues, in a way that
they aren’t for Labor or other figures — witness the relatively mild
criticism Clive Palmer drew for his personal smear of Peta Credlin,
versus the likely reaction if Abbott had said something similar about an
opponent’s childlessness. But it’s impossible to imagine that, if Labor
were in a similar position a little over a year into its first term to
what the Coalition is in now, the media atmosphere would not be far more
febrile.



And it would be more febrile still if a minor party and key
swing-vote senator had gone rogue and declared she wouldn’t pass any
government legislation unless her demands were met, as Tasmanian PUP
Senator Jacqui Lambie threatened today (imagine if she’d been a Greens
senator!). “Labor hostage to rogue senator,” the headlines would have
screamed. Lambie has, right from her election,
looked the most likely PUP candidate to go off the
reservation — indeed, the PUP is now marked more by people leaving its
ranks than joining them, as Clive Palmer’s electoral popularity begins
to slide. Now she threatens the government’s legislative agenda just
when it has worked out a way to deal with Palmer himself.



This week continued the run of bad news for the government. Someone in cabinet leaked not once but twice — first on Monday to Phil Coorey
on how Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb had (correctly) argued in favour of
joining the Chinese-led development bank, only to be headed off by
Abbott and Bishop — and then to Dennis Shanahan
on Abbott telling his ministers to get their act together and stop
jockeying (geddit?) for position. Despite the government going full
kitchen sink on national security, Newspoll showed a worsening in its
position — indeed the result was so bad it was consigned to page 2 of The Australian.
Hockey produced another trademark howler, on tertiary education. The
issue of jailing journalists over revealing Special Intelligence
Operations continues to dog the government.



As has been the usual case this year, international matters
will be a welcome distraction for the government, with APEC in Beijing
next week, followed by the G20 meetings in Fortress Brisbane, allowing
Abbott to mingle with world leaders and keep the focus off his
government’s domestic woes — although hopefully without discussions
straying onto climate change. Even then, however, Abbott has made life
unnecessarily difficult for himself with his “shirt-front” rhetoric
about Vladimir Putin, which voters thoroughly enjoyed but which requires
some form of follow-through beyond a post-meeting “we had a robust
exchange of views”. What are the odds Abbott seeks to manufacture a
Lathamesque handshake with the Russian kleptocrat in front of the
cameras?



Then again, Kevin Rudd’s and Julia Gillard’s international
performances were subjected to similar microscopic examination by the
media, with every stumble, literal or otherwise, endlessly analysed.
Let’s see if Abbott’s performance over the next 10 days gets similar
scrutiny.