Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Ssssshhh! Don't Mention The Whore

UNCOMFORTABLE, that is how quite a few senior Fairfax journalists and editors must be feeling just at the moment. No, not because of the stock price. That would be a bit of a worry, but as private enterprise and the profit motive have always been mysteries to the folk who presume to lecture others about the need for higher taxes, not much of one. The absence of fair trade coffee in The Phage cafeteria? That would be a matter of the gravest concern, but it isn’t what really must be gnawing at the likes of Michelle Grattan, Peter Hartcher and Michael Gordon, whose shared dilemma is whether or not to fully report a story that could well demolish their PM and her government.

They have easy access to all the details, as their company lawyers know all the facts, and somewhere deep inside that collective Fairfax consciousness there must be a vestigal voice urging that trio and others to make amends, to sit down at the keyboard and tap it all out. That’s what journalists are supposed to do, right? Watergate, the Murdoch hacking scandal – they were stories where dogged reporters spoke truth to power, or so pop mythology insists. So far, however, the Fairfax crew has resisted the urge to commit anything on this matter to print, despite the ease with which one of their number might craft a front-page scoop. Perhaps they are too busy celebrating Gillard’s newfound “traction” courtesy of a meagre 4% bounce in the polls.

The story that could change a government is, of course, the ongoing misadventures of Craig Thomson, whose amorous antics with prostitutes and union funds have the potential to prompt a by-election. Since Thomson holds the seat of  Dobell by less than 5 points he is as good as gone, likewise the shambolic government  of which he is member.

Fairfax could hasten that process with a simple story explaining why Thomson's account of the libel case he filed against the news organisation is at odds with their own version of events.

According to Fairfax, Cameron dropped his action days before it was due to go before a judge. According to Cameron he did so only after a settlement was reached. He has repeated that claim on numerous occasions over the past two months and not once has a Fairfax voice disputed assertions like this: “Over a month ago I reached a confidential agreement with Fairfax. This was reported in the press and the agreement filed in court as a settlement of my matters and again the legal matters where withdrawn. As with the HSU settlement I was very happy with the outcome.”

If Fairfax’s political correspondents were not posturing apologists for Gillard, one would by now have penned a story saying that Cameron is no less fast and loose with the truth about that aborted libel action than with his marriage vows. If there was a settlement, surely it cannot have been more than one party’s agreement to withdraw in return for the other’s pledge not to laugh too loudly.

But Fairfax is apparently holding its tongue while Cameron leads his constituents to believe that he has achieved some sort of vindication at Fairfax’s expense.

What sort of a company allows its good name to be thus sullied? A craven and cowardly one offering fealty to a appalling government, not to the truth.

UPDATE: Radio station 2UE interviews a forensic document examiner who says in not so many words that Thomson is a liar.  Thanks to Catallaxy for the link. There is more on Thomson here

NOTE: Typo fixed re., "Cameron". which should have been "Thomson".

7 comments:

  1. Swap the political gender and the hounding out of Parliament of Santo Santoro for failing to complete a party required register, would pale into insignificance in comparison to the howling we would now be hearing.
    But let's be fair, haven't heard a peep from Paul Kelly,Denis Shanahan, Michael Stutchbury and of course, their ABC hasn't uttered a peep.
    Let's imagine for a second, it was Wilson Tuckey in identical circumstances...???

    ReplyDelete
  2. PMLive on Sky News seems to be the only one banging on about this. Maybe for everyone else it's like Climategate - ignore it long enough and hope it will go away.

    One theory mentioned is if Thompson falls, Jenkins will step down as Speaker to be replaced by Slipper and the numbers would balance again...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the name change a typo? "According to Fairfax, Cameron dropped his action days before it was due to go before a judge"

    ReplyDelete
  4. The collapse will come when Fairfax's share price in cents drops to match the ALP's current primary vote.

    I hope at the end of it all Gillard's boot polish (and Rudd's before her) was tasty enough for them.

    One theory mentioned is if Thompson falls, Jenkins will step down as Speaker to be replaced by Slipper and the numbers would balance again...

    Doesn't the Speaker get a casting vote in certain critical matters - you know, like a motion of no confidence? Once the Lib-Nats get the numbers in Parliament, surely it's over whether one of their number is Speaker or not? Or am I missing something here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why are even Bolt and Blair going to ground on this, not allowing comments? Could it be that Gillard has bullied News Limited editors into submission following their 'robust' meeting a couple of weeks ago? I suspect so.

    What the ALP(the leader of ALP = J Gillard) has done by bailing out Thomson with party funds is, by any reasonable interpretation, tantamount to corruption. If it had happened in NSW then ICAC or the Ombudsman would be all over it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perturbed, it doesn't matter - Turnbull will desert the Libs for a good enough price. He's Julias card up the sleeve.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Anonymous August 17, 2011 6:46 AM: I suspect it's because Bolt and Blair have people to whom they are answerable, and Bolt has his own legal woes right now anyway.

    I agree they shouldn't be this nervous, but it's too easy for some troll to put something on their boards - possibly buried in a wall of relatively meaningless drivel - that would slip past moderation and make them look really, really bad.

    I suspect with all bloggers on this topic, the nervousness is proportional to the volume of traffic they have to moderate and whether they moderate at all (which may be why Catallaxy Files also has comments closed). The Professor, on the other hand, has fairly low traffic and can check all his posts with relative ease.

    Wasn't Bob Brown on the ropes a while back for some obscene sum of money ($250,000 comes to mind) in legal fees that would have cleaned him out personally and tossed him out of the Senate, only to be saved at the last minute by a private benefactor? It's the same thing all over again, except the benefactor is not a wealthy private citizen coughing up their own money and the political stakes are significantly higher.

    Of course you might argue that the stakes were high then, too - one is left to ruminate on what might have happened if the Greens had gone to the last election with anyone except Bob Brown as their leader. Between the Green mainstream's dreamy-eyed tofu socialism and Lee Rhiannon's strident anti-Israel soapboxing, they might have succeeded in getting themselves wiped out.

    ReplyDelete