A Rum Lot At Media Watch

LATE ONE night in, oh, 1978-or-so, after a MiSex show at the London Tavern, a friend who was a junior journalist at Fairfax suggested a drink at his club. This turned out to be the Journalists’ Club, where they served something called Lemon Hart Rum, a memorably smooth drop and remembered all the more for having been repeated in far too many interrogative approaches to the barman. Eventually, too wobbly to walk and unable to find the car, the Professor’s companion volunteered the information that “his club” also offered accommodation for the weary. This turned out to be a little room named after Kenneth Slessor and rather like those sanctums the Scientologists reserve for the spirit of L. Ron Hubbard in each and every of their temples. It boasted a few books and two very comfy armchairs, in one of which a young Bunyip took his rest. Sometime later, a middle-aged gentleman sat on the Professor’s lap, which startled both of us in the dark. He expressed regret and said he would find another spot to sleep. The next morning found him curled up on the carpet with shoes for pillow and trousers about his knees. Ever since that night it has been very hard to think ill of the gentlemen of the press.

That shows how times have changed because contempt grows easier by the day. It is inconceivable that a decent man would get on the squirt with a scribe of the modern variety. Nod off somewhere dark and soft and it might a Media Watch researcher who wrenches you from the arms of Morpheus, and that would mean some extreme rudeness if the way Jen Marohasy is being treated is an indication.

Some nasty shrew, full of presumption, overflowing with arrogance and entitlement – that would be your midnight inquisitor. What right do you have to that chair? Who paid for those rums? Are you now or have you ever been a conservative?

And if you were to answer in truth and fully, that simply would not do, wouldn’t do at all! Being a Media Watch operative, your personal prosecutor would feel obligated to call business associates, friends and enemies, especially the enemies, to both collect and sow a little dirt. This is what publicly funded journalists do these days, apparently, as Marohasy has been experiencing and reporting on her blog.

Nor is that the limit of the ABC’s arrogance. If queried about their behaviour, the reaction is tp shoot off a patronising and condescending note that says, in effect, Media Watch has a charter allowing to do anything it damn well likes, explanations not required. This is what Marc Hendrickx learned from Media Watch executive producer Lin Buckfield:

Dear Mr Hendrickx

Thank you for your email, it is one of many Media Watch has received in relation to questions the program sent to Dr Marohasy last week. As you will be aware, Media Watch has not, as yet, run an item looking at the media coverage of the report “Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth” authored by Dr. Marohasy and commissioned by the Australian Environment Foundation.

Media Watch looks at how the media (all platforms) report and treat various issues. In order to do that we research many stories, telephone calls are made, emails are sent. Our hardworking team of 3 researchers cover a lot of ground in the course of their working days.

Ours is a controversial program, our investigations rarely please everyone but we are bound not only by our ethics as journalists but also by the ABC Editorial Policies to fair, honest and unbiased in our approach to our work. We are under no obligation to discuss correspondence or conversations with third parties done in the course of legitimate research.

Given that Media Watch has not yet put an item to air looking at the media coverage of the report “Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth”, may I suggest you get back to me with any questions you may have if and when the item airs?

Sincerely

Lin Buckfield
Executive Producer
Media Watch

Notice Buckfield’s slime and sleight of hand. The segment is not to be about Marohasy and her crusade to restore the Murray’s mouth. It is to be on “the media coverage of the report.” That would be why Marohasy’s interrogator has been demanding to know if she associates with certain people Media Watch evidently believes to be scoundrels, how she stocks her bank account and if she has dealt with (shudder) the Heartland Institute and other secular satans.

Then there are the blandishments – “we research many stories, telephone calls are made, emails are sent” – that float in an oil of self-congratulation. Media Watch’s investigators are “hard working” and “bound by our ethics as journalists” . You silly, silly man, Mr Hendrickx, to think the Smugger Show might ever be less than “fair, honest and unbiased.” Why, perish the very thought!

The last time the Professor heard anything resembling that tone, it was from the lips of a B-movie Nazi insisting that Germans were a civilised race and neither he nor his SS comrades should be mistaken for barbarians.

Stick with Marohasy, she needs support and if there is a tip jar on her site, bung something in it. And read Hendrickx, who also understands that Media Watch’s naked arrogance is more than rudeness.

Government-funded inquisitors baying at the heels of a scientist whose opinions and research inconvenience their mates in the Green Establishment? To tolerate that for very much longer is more than dangerous, it is stupid. How can we allow the public purse to pay the salaries of bullies? It is a question Prime Minister Abbott will need to resolve and quick.

In the meantime, Buckfield’s song of righteousness confirms the Professor’s moral certainty. If a Media Watch reporter were to be spotted on the floor of the Kenneth Slessor library, it would be remiss not to kick him on the way out.

UPDATE: After a round of correspondence, Hendrickx asks Buckfield:

... Should the program go to air I will assess it on its merits and ask questions if I think it is warranted.  In the meantime I draw your attention to the results of a Google search of the phrase "sent Friday" for your site http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/. It returns 400 results.  ("sent friday site:http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/")

Can you comment on what appears to be a very common Media Watch tactic of ambushing the subjects of its investigations with questions late on a Friday afternoon for reports that are due to be broadcast the following Monday. With this in mind I draw your attention to questions 13 and 14 in the list we provided. 

13. Why did Media Watch provide Dr Marohasy with such short notice to respond to questions? 

14. Does Media Watch consider the amount of time fair and reasonable given the number and nature of questioning?

Hey, Marc, don't hold your breath. It's Media Watch's world, everyone else just pays for it.