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reported in the press and the agreement filed in court as a settlement of my matters and again the legal matters where withdrawn.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.
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".
