Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Wood On The Global Mail

THE BOYS and girls at GetUp are very upset about a video in which Viscount Monckton addresses a group of Australian mining execs. He tells them that if they want fair media coverage they will need to buy a media outlet. Now that Gina Rinehart has become the largest Fairfax shareholder, the video is Exhibit A in the activist group’s campaign to have its friends in Canberra make that nasty woman go away. If you have not seen it already, the clip is below.

Not much there, really, other than the evil GetUp purports to see, which in this case amounts to the appalling notion that free speech might be available to people other than pimply leftoid snots. Simply put, miners and climate sceptics should not be allowed to own media assets because they are, well, miners and climate sceptics. We’re all clear on that, right? Good, because now the logic gets a little twisted.

While the newspapers were full of Gina’s “raid” – and let us hope it is the start of a conquest, not a mere foray --  Monica Attard launched the Global Mail with $15 million supplied by internet entrepreneur Graeme Wood, who is by far and away the Greens’ largest and most enthusiastic donor.

So what’s the difference, you may wonder? Well, according to Attard, her benefactor is an altruist who cares only about quality journalism -- someone who would never, ever dream of leaning on the people he pays in order to advance the causes he supports. If you are one of those terminally cynical sorts, Attard has a ready answer. As she explained yesterday to the Australia’s media section, “Graeme is chairperson of The Global Mail board. He has no editorial input whatsoever.”

That is not what the Australian Election Commission might conclude, as it holds at least one document which makes Attard’s assertion appear rather hollow.

Filed on November 8, 2011, it lists Wood’s donations of $1,680,795 to the Greens from July to November 2010, when there was an election to be fought and a jolt of extra cash must have come in very handy. While such generosity is eye-popping, it is the email address Wood lists on the AEC form which is even more startling. It leaves no doubt the tycoon’s journalistic philanthropy and politics are one and the same:

In case your eyes are fading, the Greens’ mega-donor gives his contact email as graeme.wood@theglobalmail.org 

What was it Attard was saying about the boss having “no editorial input whatsoever”?  She might want to get a few of her investigative journalists to look into that.

A NOTE: There is no direct link to the document in the above post because it was a bugger to open and download. Those disinclined to take a Bunyip's word can drive themselves potty by tackling the following URLs.

Wood's private number was blacked out at the Billabong.


  1. Another useful (rich) idiot was on Sky News Agenda last night. Geoff Cousins was also upset about this video and said if Gina imposed her views on Fairfax editorial it would be improper. But no metion of why she might want to buy into Fairfax. What if her interventions increased circulation? Would that be improper?

  2. Professor the Great Bunyip must be so pleased to see your sense of fairplay by considering the privacy of others. Good for you.

    1. PhillipGeorge(c)2012February 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

      So what does publicly listed mean? To me it means publically. So the question is one of aesthetics.

      And therein I can launch another sermon on the eye of the beholder. Once upon a time genuine aesthetics could renounce money and really live among the trees. Real Christian hermits could and would genuinely renounce property and influence and thereby some of them became among the most influential people ever. eg. Simon the stylite - columnist extroadinaire. Or one of the first nudist, St Francis of Assisi.

      These brain deads want money, power and to fuck the electricity grid all at once. And they cannot fathom why real farmers put CO2 generators into real green houses to create a greener garden. Also visit a real live aquarium and know why underwater gardeners also pump added CO2 into their microcosmic delights.

      Get naked. Live in a forest, half starve yourself to death and then speak to us. because it will then be authentic. And it may, just may have some insight.

    2. Andrew L (formerly Mr.Apocalypse etc)February 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

      They might want to remove their Shakespearean masks and ego first, Phillip. That's naked.
      Hard to do when you don't realise your possession of them in the first instance.

    3. PhillipGeorge, you could try considering some time how aesthetic differs from ascetic.
      Compare, for instance, Simeon Stylites, the first agony columnist, with Simon the Stylist, an interior decorator.

    4. Deadman, you win Late Classical Antiquity forever.

  3. Chairman of company has company email address. A scoop almost as lame as some of the Global Mail's own.

  4. Anonymous: no surprise that he would have an email address, but a bit of a surprise that he would list his contact details at the mail server of an impartial, unbiased, quality journalism enterprise, one over which his editrix swears he has no influence nor seeks to exert any.

    And on a document disclosing a humungous donation to a political party!

    Sure, as "scoops" go, this isn't finding Lord Lucan, but it is certainly telling.

  5. "...One over which his editrix swears he has no influence nor seeks to exert any."

    Haven't his employment picks done precisely that already?

  6. ABC Newcastle has been running with the Gina Rinehart/Monckton story this morning. They're about (after 10am) to have Monica Attard on to talk about the Global Mail. I think they said it was able to start because of a "wealthy philanthropist".

  7. Graeme W.: Why didn't you give Monica a call and ask her on air why the Green's biggest donor lists her "independent" site as his email address.

    Good luck getting past the ABC's screeners.

  8. Nice investigative journalism by GetUp(your nose). The sub titles (more properly over titles coz they ain't 'sub' anything) discuss someone called Joe Nova. Judging by the pic on her site I'd say she is more of a Jo Nova but maybe my eyesight is going.

  9. Watching that clip of Monckton, my thoughts are 'good on 'em.' I see nothing sinister here. If it scares a few snotty nosed school boys from Getup! - who gives a rats? They'll all be voting Liberal in a few time when they grow up anyway...Idea! Should start an organisation called GrowUp! Get lots of funding from Big Oil. Big Coal etc...

  10. Glad I didn't waste my money on a phone call Professor. The interviewer (Jill Emberson) went to school with Monica.

    Acording to Monica, the difference between Rhinehart owning 10% of Fairfax and Wood owning 100% of Global Mail is "enormous" because Wood is doing it as a philanthropist.

    Apparently he is only interested in quality journalism!

    Could Monica really be that stupid?

  11. Er, I think thats Monica being cynical, not stupid.

  12. "he is only interested in quality journalism"

    to these people ...quality journalism equals Leftist journalism. FULL STOP

  13. It leaves no doubt the tycoon’s journalistic philanthropy and politics are one and the same:

    But of course they are! In other news, water is wet!

    which in this case amounts to the appalling notion that free speech might be available to people other than pimply leftoid snots.

    And not-so-pimply leftoid snots. For example: redheaded female ones and bespectacled blond-ish ones and gaunt gay ones, and middle-aged ex-communist ones, and ones who hold Orders of Australia and strange ideas about democracy & climate, and those who have been named Australian of the Year & suck at predicting the future, and so on.

    That is the true message - that the Left is becoming increasingly outraged at the fact that its opponents have a voice, and is taking steps to muzzle or at least hobble that voice. This is extremely worrying.