Which law would that be? Speed limits on the open road? No cattle duffing? No singlets in the front bar?

Isn’t it more likely they agree on the RULE OF LAW?

I can now see that some of the forms of words used did not adequately explain what I intended to say. Most particularly, they have allowed some to read into the column sentiments that I did not intend, and which I do not believe.

He also apologised for “injudicious use of words and themes”.

But this wasn’t always Backman’s line. Some email correspondence has come to light that suggests when the controversy first broke, Backman was engaging in that time-honoured newsroom tradition: blaming the sub-editors. (UPDATE: Backman sees this differently. See UPDATE at the foot of this story.)

The exchange was initiated by Monash University student Justin Lipinski, who e-mailed Backman late on Sunday night, the day the column was published in The Age.

Lipinski politely asked Backman to justify his words, and in particular the reference to boorish Israeli tourists in Nepal. Backman replied almost immediately, and claimed that in the original, this point was “finessed” with a reference to the Israelis being reservists – but that this had been edited out by The Age.

Here is the correspondence:

Dear Michael, I Recently read your latest column in The Age about the Israel-Palestine conflict. While I respect your work on business in Asia (I recently recommended ‘Big in Asia’ and ‘Asia Future Shock’ to some friends) I had some trouble with this article. I was wondering what evidence you were referring to when you suggested that Israel is responsible for the recent series of terrorist attacks. I was also curious about why you felt the need to discuss rude Israeli tourists in an article about Gaza. Where is the nexus? Kind regards, Justin Lipinski.

And the reply:

Hi Justin, thanks for your message. I didn’t say that Israel was behind the said events but rather anger at the treatment of the Palestinians partly allows Islamic extremists justification for some of the autrocities they have committed. I really don’t think that should be controversial, but I do of course understand that saying anything critical of Israel will always be controversial for some! The Nepal reference was simply to say that many of the trekkers ‘are reservists and it is their sometimes high-handed attitidues that they bring with them into Gaza and so on. The finessing of the point was removed by the Age’s editors unfortunately. I know that the column has caused a lot of controversy, but really I don’t think it should. I think free debate is always worth defending even if some feel offended in the process. best regards Michael

And the rejoinder:

Hi Michael, Thanks for your speedy response!
I agree with you that free debate is always worth defending even if it offends some in the process. That’s why I subscribe to Crikey . That being said, if free debate is to be offensive, it must be grounded in some sort of evidence. There seemed no attempt to supply readers with any evidence that Islamic extremists justified their attacks by pointing to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Non-biased evidence, although a tricky concept in itself, is important. Otherwise comments may be deemed as racist. I am by no means suggesting you intended to come across as racist, and I am sure that if you were given the space in the column you would have backed your arguments. But maybe reconsider writing in such a short column if you cannot add the necessary finess. Justin Lipinski.

Now there is something strange going on here. The article is no longer on The Age’s website but is on Backman’s website. Presumably this is the piece as he wrote it, rather than as The Age edited it. [UPDATE: Backman says not. See UPDATE at the foot of this post.] Yet there is no “finessing” of the relevant paragraph, as he claims. A check on the Factiva database reveals that in the article as published this paragraph is identical to the one on Backman’s website.

Also, strangely, the article on Backman’s site now includes a postscript with a link to the article I mentioned in a post earlier this week, making similar claims about rude Israeli tourists.

Does this mean, Mr Backman, that you are reading this blog? Or did you find that article for yourself? If you are reading, Crikey tried to e-mail you earlier in the week, and we are still waiting for a response. We’d like to talk.

UPDATE: Michael Backman has been in touch. He sent the following e-mail today:

Dear Margaret

I did not receive an e-mail from anyone at Crikey. And until now, I have not had any communications with you personally, despite you apparently having been writing all week  about what I might or might not have done, and what I might or might not think.

Your heading and contention today that I have blamed the subs at the Age is wrong. I simply said in a private e-mail to someone that some finessing of one point (that in relation to Nepal) was removed. The line that was removed linked the point about young Israelis in Nepal back to Palestine.

I do not blame the Age or the subs whatsoever for the thrust of my piece and the reaction to it. I have the utmost regard for all in the Business section at the Age.

The column as it appeared on my website was as it was published. I do not distribute pre-edited versions of my columns as a courtesy to the Age.

As I mentioned, you have included in your writings suppositions about me. At no stage have you bothered to check anything with me. A small example: I see that you have mentioned that “my” Facebook page has been removed. I do not use Facebook, I do not know how to use it, and until I was alerted to it in your writings I was not even aware that a Facebook page had been set up in my name. I believe that the page might have been established as a ‘fan’ page by someone in Malaysia for Malaysians to follow what I write about Malaysia. I have no idea about why it was removed or indeed anything else about it.

Sincerely

Michael Backman

Michael,

My editor, Jonathan Green, tells me he has sent you several emails over the last week. Obviously they have not reached you. I will check with him what email address he was using. I myself have hunted for contact details for you without success. I got this email address for the first time today, from Justin Lipinski. I will publish your letter to me on my blog straight away, as an update to today’s article. If you want to provide any other comment, or to write a piece of your own for Crikey about the events of the last week, I am sure my editor would be interested.

Yours, Margaret Simons

Not that Fairfax are on their own. This adds to mUmBRELLA’s previous post on the Daily Tele’s weekend tv guide.

(Right. Check glasshouse. Prepare for stone throwing.)

Help Me Explain Twitter to Eggheads

New media academic Jay Rosen, whose presence on Twitter is one of the main reason I am there too, is writing an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education about why he is on Twitter. He has asked for help from readers of his blog, and followers of his Twitter feed. The resulting post and comments make an interesting read, and an interesting article in the making.

More Negative Press for O’Reilly

Roy Greenslade predicts that Tony O’Reilly will have to get used to some negative press, and questions whether he will be able to maintain his hold in The Independent newspaper. The profile Greenslade links to, from the Financial Times contains nothing about O’Reilly’s Australian setbacks – the announcement last November that his debt-laden Independent News and Media would sell its stake in APN News and Media, and the reports last month that he is having trouble finding a buyer.

Seems like only yesterday (but in fact January 2007) that O’Reilly was trying to buy out the other shareholders in APN, and there were mutterings that he might want to make bigger moves in media once the foreign ownership regulations were relaxed. All that came to nothing. If the economic times were better, perhaps it would be clearer where APN, with its Classic Hits and Mix FM Radio brands and stable of regional daily newspapers, would end up. As it is, nothing is clear.

A stuff up at the Tele.

Lastly, what a stuff up at the Daily Telegraph. Tim Burrowes reports at MUmBRELLA that the Tele managed to get its weekend television listings entirely arse-about in Saturday’s paper, apparently reprinting a guide from some time last year.

According to the Tele, Big Brother (which you may recall was axed after its last series) is at the heart of tonight’s schedule for Ten, with showings at 7pm and 10pm, wrapped around the premiere of How To Look Good Naked. Meanwhile, fans of Media Watch will be glad to see that that’s on the ABC, along, apparently, with an unexpected return for More Than Enough Rope from Andrew Denton.

Oh deary me….