Should a journalist protect a source if it’s found that the source was providing (what currently looks like) fabricated information?
Politics, elections and piffle plinking
Journalists and sources?
-
-
From the Latest
-
-
-
The Stump- Nastier refugee stand-offs in our region Andrew Bartlett
- Simon Birmingham talks sense Bernard Keane
- Qld’s CMC, Police & Palm Island Andrew Bartlett
- Updated: Fran goes fact finding Jonathan Green
- Misleading Parliament: care factor? Bernard Keane
-
Pollbludger
-
Antony Green
-
Mumble
-
The Tally Room
-
Andrew Norton
-
Meganomics
-
Larvatus Prodeo
-
Club Troppo
-
Core Economics
- The RMB and the US trade deficit Mark Crosby
- Et tu Quiggin? Joshua Gans
- A Satisfying Chat Andrew Leigh
-
Jack the Insider
-
Peter Martin
-
Pure Poison
-
Woolly Days
-
Political Sword
-
Public Opinion
-
Tasmanian Politics
-
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
36 Comments
If there is no email then Turnbull and everyone else involved is going to look mighty stupid. If there is an email, it’ll still have to be pretty damning otherwise it’ll simply be dismissed as an MP making representations on behalf of a constituent.
Fake emails? What do they think this is, South Australia?
No.
Nothing about this makes any sense:
If there was no email, why did Mr Grech remember reading one? I find it improbable a public servant would drop the PM in it if he wasn’t 100% sure, with evidence. Just clam up an say “I don’t recall”.
If it did exist, and was fake, why has is seemingly vanished? If it wasn’t real then there’s no need to make it disappear, although I concede if it was obviously fake it might have been deleted as ’spam’.
If it did exist, and was real…..well Rudd’s in trouble. But I find it hard to believe Rudd or his staff would commit something like that to writing. Why leave a paper trail? Possibly a junior staffer might have done it without thinking, but still.
The Swan thing is different in that contact is alleged to have been made by phone, so the emails are irrelevant to whatever happens to Swan. Phone contact sounds more believable than emails, and again I find it hard to believe a public servant would lie about this. So I’m probably more interested in the Swan angle than Rudd at this point. But without any solid evidence it’s just Grech’s word against Swan. So then what?
MDMConnell sums up my view.
Very possible the email was fake, but that doesn’t explain Grech.
Since it wasn’t on his computer & not in the back-up servers, it may have been a print-out he was shown, or that was slipped into his in-tray, pigeon hole or whatever. Remember that the kerfuffle was quite recent, the email in February.
If you’re in a position of having to deal with hundreds of emails, faxes & pieces of paper a day, would you remember? You might recall what action you took, because you’d have recorded that, so could look it up – a perfectly normal thing to do.
I’d assume that, a diligent senior officer, he’d have put it in the relevant file, or created a new one. And he’d have backed up! Probably more than one way. You’re in his type of job, you tend to do it whenever you leave your office, even to use the toilet; certainly at the end of the day. Note that Mr Grech assumed it was still on his computer, but when he looked, it wasn’t.
When he couldn’t find it, he’d have done what most of us would – check personal back-up systems – discs, external HDs, USB flash drive, whatever – several times. No joy? Perhaps the secretary? Check every computer from which it might have been forwarded. Still no joy. Then try the main backups, the servers – the lot. Unless he’s a computer illiterate, he’d have backed up religiously & done all the above as soon as the issue was raised, before the fit hit the shan bigtime.
Assuming he backed up and checked thoroughly – or there was a Watergate-style raid of Watergate proportions on his office – the email was never on Mr Grech’s computer.
And you don’t have to be Bill Gates to know that.
#6
Whatever the situation, if it existed there should be evidence of it. If he was shown a printout, there should be a hard copy somewhere.
But where? Not necessarily from Parliament, even Canberra. As there were no relevant emails on Grech’s or Charlton’s computers, it may never have been on a Parliament House computer. Surely after the SA & Vic scandals, people weren’t dumb enough to leave traces on office/building computers or servers.
As it seems to have been shown around, or read out – not by Mr Grech – how did others get hold of it? Was it even an email? Or was it just a normal document typed on a computer & probably long ago deleted properly from a hard drive? A mobile phone text perhaps? One piece of paper, shown to Grech, stuck on a pile etc. Has a photo of the hard copy been printed anywhere?
Turnbull hasn’t disclosed his source yet, nor described it other than as an email. Did it just appear in his office? On his computer (probably not as the Opposition has reportedly offered up its computers? Was he read it? Who notified the press? So Turnbull now is the one most likely to hold the email/ document nearest the source. Has he handed it to the Auditor General?
Over to Turnbull now.
Rudd has just referred the matter to the AFP, so i suspect possum will get an answer to his question sooner rather than later.
Ah, well, it’s gone further. “Kevin Rudd says AFP will investigate OzCar email scandal”, http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25664281-29277,00.html
AFP “will investigate whether someone impersonated a public servant and made up a fake email that is at the centre of the OzCar scandal engulfing the government.
Mr Rudd said… Turnbull had claimed to be in possession of documentary evidence that indicated his office had lobbied on behalf of Ipswich car dealer John Grant. Mr Turnbull had now changed his tune and his integrity was at stake … “
#8 “Was it even an email?”
That’s what everyone’s referring to. If it was a mobile phone text or document, wouldn’t they just say ‘text message’ or ‘printout’?
And it still doesn’t explain Grech’s statements, nor why he said what he said when there seems to be no direct proof.
Someone is lying.
Mail servers log where every email is going to and where every email says it is coming from. If this email did exist it would have been logged on a few computers. So either we have a lot of public servants lying here or the former minister for lightbulbs is lying.
Personally I think the word of quite a few people that had to pass multiple security clearances stands up for a bit more than the word of the man that conned HIH into bankruptcy and that pulled off the biggest preselection branch stack in Australian history.
IMHO the bluff has been expensively called by referring it to the AFP.
I also can’t see anyone resigning if it was true (although I would want to see that just for the extent of the coverup if it’s true). Downer, Reith etc set the height of that bar at ridiculous levels – we’ll only see resignations of those who are unpopular in the party room.
MDMConnell@11 Check http://twitpic.com/7sfyu
“As discussed, we have asked IT to check the log for incoming external emails ro Mr Grech’s inbox on 19 February 2009. I can confirm that no emails were received by Mr Grech on that day from either Andrew Charlton or anyone else from the Prime Minister’s Office. IT has confirmed that even if an email was subsequently deleted, it would appear in the log.”
No email.
BTW: The wording of the fake email (but not the fake email itself), contained in Steve Lewis’s email to Lachlan Harris is on http://twitpic.com/7sfux
If the email (or the text) provided to Lewis was fake (and at the moment it seems like all that happened was the text was read to Lewis, so it doens;t seem all that pursuasive), then the source is not a source worth protecting.
Surely journalists only protect sources who provide truth. If a source is using a journalist, I can’t see the journalist feeling too much of a need to protect that person. Especially if it blows up in said journo’s face.
BUT, let’s just say (for the sake of arguements) someone has said to Lewis they have this email, “not sure if it’s true, but anyway this is what it says…”. Now is that providing fabricated information? Lewis doesn’t have to believe it – and it seems he has rang Grech to confirm anything. I am sure most things said journo’s hear are taken with a pinch of salt until confirmed.
So it may not be as cut and dried as Poss’s question supposes.
However: Given Turnbull’s strong denial about his office or anyone from the Liberal Party giving Lewis the email, if Lewis knows that is not true (and I’m not suggesting it is)… what does he do then? Does he protect the source?
If it is known the information is fabricated or a lie then the journalist must reveal the source otherwise anybody can say any old thing to a journo and he print it without having to be concerned about the truthfulness or honesty of the info.
Say if somebody rings up a journo (knowing he has protection because a journo wont reveal sources) and says such and such a MP is a pedophile…then the journo can run with it without the slightest care in the world. He can say it came from a source who he must protect. AND in that instance what is to stop journos simply making up any old story they like and publishing it and saying it was from a protected source?
The only way a journo can maintain protection of their sources if liars and fraudsters are revealed. This means a b*llsh*tartist cannot use a journo with impunity.
-The only way a journo can maintain protection of their sources is if liars and fraudsters are revealed. This means a b*llsh*tartist cannot use a journo with impunity.- It also keeps the journos honest, they cant make up stories themselves, knowing they will have to reveal their source if it turns out to be a intentional lie or fabrication.
AND you would think a journo would want to reveal their source anyway, to send the message that they are not to be used for dishonest purposes.
A journo must be burdened with some responsibility since what they say reaches the wider public. A journo must inquire and be satisfied as to the genuineness of a document/information and its integrity. I’m not sure if this is real or not, someone gave it to me…doesn’t cut it. Especially in the digital world were just about everything is easy to fake.
The thing is, Grech’s actions were in line with his version of events.
Remember the guy from Ford Credit also testified that grech made it clear looking after this guy would be appreciated. Grech’s actions back up his recollection.
Even if there’s no email, somehow this guy got the impression he’d been asked to look after the car dealer.
Yeh, maybe he got that after reading the fake email.
Stephen @ #19 There is a difference between a genuine email from the PM’s office, and what the PM calls a “fake” email; so there seemed to be an email, but it was nt sent through the Parliamentary servers.
Unless Grech was in the “plot” from the beginning (and no one has suggested that), or is too fuddled to remember (probable, given his appearance at the Senate Inquiry) a fake email appeared on 19 February- probably as what seemed to be a print-out of an email (and, unless a lot of people are lying, a paper copy was being either shown around or being read to pollies & journos).
This fake email was the first domino, the fall of which precipitated a flurry of Treasury activity – more than usually enthusiastic because of the belief that the PM wanted his friend looked after.
At this stage, there are 3 questions to which the AFP will seek answers: (1) Who was responsible for the fake email/s – creation & propagation? (2) Was there a conspiracy to smear the government – as there was in the SA’s “Scientologists’ $20,000 donation to the ALP” fake email scam? (3) Was it set up to ensure John Grant received Ford/etc finance coverage of his clients’ car loans, thereby supplying evidence for legal action on the grounds of corruption against the PM & Treasurer?
There’s a fourth question for the Auditor General: Why did Grech and Treasury proceed with action that could lead to charges of corruption, before checking with the PM? Did the precedent of Treasury’s putting up the funds to bail out John Howard’s brother’s company (and other Howard Gov scandals) predispose Treasury to accept that this was normal PM behaviour? In other words, is there now a serious cultural problem in Treasury?
The problem with your argument is you take for granted the email was definitely fake.
Sure, but consider that Rudd has an unlimited opportunity to quizz Charlton, and Charlton would not lie to Rudd unless he is a complete doofus. Plus it is almost impossible to delete an email entirely —> http://twitter.com/dfg77 (check around the time i posted this comment… i think he is saying what many computer types have said.)
I think it is a bit crazy, but for it all to tie together you could say that Grech got an email impersonating Charlton so it wasn’t found with searches of emails but they found it, the govt knows it is fake hence they call in the AFP. Grech told the truth because he got the email. It is a bit far-feched to suggest someone could send an email that would look like it came from Charlton but was sent from outside.
One way or another i can’t wait for parliament tomorrow.
If it’s a fake (and I reckon it is) – Someone who distributes a fake doc can’t really be treated as a ’source’ in the journalistic sense, they are at best a trickster, and at worst a criminal. A small dingy room, 2nd hand cigarette smoke, some men in badly cut 70’s suits (jackets off, sleeves rolled up), a bright light in the eyes and a phone book about the head is the treatment that ‘sources’ of fake emails deserve. Or perhaps that what they should dish up to the Journo in order to get to the identity of the Faker?
Just sayin’….
It is a bit far-feched to suggest someone could send an email that would look like it came from Charlton but was sent from outside.
Actually, almost all mail systems will happily accept emails from outside that appear to be from an internal user.
The only exception I’ve ever encountered was at Defence.
(Such an email could actually be legitmate – if two internal users are subscribed to the same externally-hosted mailing list, and one of them sends a mail to that list).
What I find odd/suspicious is that Rudd has bought in the auditor-general to investigate. The AG can only look at the money side of the issue not the email or anything that will do with the PMO. It is the type of investigation you have when you need the terms-of-reference very limited.
To reply to caf above, the mail systems that accept the email from outside still log where it is going to and where it says it came from. It’s a very trivial search to list these details for every email sent to a paticular address. That is why I said that someone is lying – either everyone with access to these logs or the anonymous tip to Steve Lewis and the opposition leader who says he has evidence but will not present it.
I’m hoping Turnbull will put up or back down and save us the cost of an investigation, but from what he has shown of his character to date I very much doubt he will.
Poss, are you going to answer your own question???
These days the Auditors in Government departments cover all aspects of business that are covered by defined standards. This would include IT systems and business processes. They generally have technical auditors in all the business processes, not just financial.
The email could simply have been created with a word processor, printed out, dropped in Grech’s intray. Four months later when questioned, it wouldn’t be hard to be unsure where you had seen it.
Wouldn’t you keep a copy of an email from the PM’s office, I know I would?
Even if the email existed it wouldn’t mount to a hill of beans, so much fuss over something so insignificant.
Yes, Possum, a journalist always protects his or her sources. They even go to jail for it. If the source turns out to be dodgy – and all journalists double check, no matter what – then the source is dropped. If the double check turns out to be dodgy, after going to print, then the journalist is in deep doo-doo, and most probably loses their job.
Sincerely doubt this is going to happen in the emailgate affair, however. News Ltd has cojones of iron.
A journo could create an imaginary story to harm a person and claim a source. Doesn’t even have to exist and no one could gainsay them.
I reckon the rule should be that if the information presented to the journo is false then there should be no protection at all.
Gee you are two minutes out from an election and you could print a story that a candidate had several affairs with men and women according to a source. After they lose the election you can say sorry, my source was wrong. But I cant tell you my source.
Journos can destroy lives and careers with their stories so if it turns out to be false there should be no protection of sources. This is to stop malicious activity.
It’s not the source who’s in trouble then, Thomas Paine, but the journalist. If they make stuff up they get the sack. Google Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass.
No, he should actively hang them out to dry. If a source deliberately gives false info they have broken trust, tried to use the journo for their own agenda unfairly, usually to do someone harm.
I stress if its done deliberately Everyone stuffs up on occasion.
Mal has been wounded – especially now Swan has released emails showing other car dealers have received the same attention. Even if it was 100% true – it comes nowhere near AWB scandal.. and Downer and a few others got away with that.