What have they ever done to him?
News Ltd responds to Bob Brown's criticisms of their relentlessly one-sided, dishonest "reporting" against the Greens with a coy, disingenuous, "Why us? We're just providing scrutiny"
Brown's contempt was misplaced, as the story was on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald. His mistaken naming of The Australian, which he describes as the "hate media", was typical of his campaign to deride scrutiny of a carbon tax or Greens policies in The Australian.
It is an old politician's trick to isolate and diminish a critic through misrepresentation.
Yes, that's it. Because News Ltd has only been an honest media player, fairly but vigorously reporting on the Greens.
Like with outright lies
And publicly demanding that they be destroyed
Yup, the only explanation for Brown finally calling them on their continuing, shamelessly misleading campaign against his party is that he doesn't like "scrutiny" and hates being asked "hard questions".
PS If you believe the News Ltd hacks, the following answers to Uhlmann on "7.30" are supposed to be somehow contradictory - but I don't see why:
Uhlmann: "Didn't you say in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?
Brown: "No, I did not, you're looking at the Murdoch press. What I said back in 2007 was that we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line."
Uhlmann: "It wasn't the Murdoch press. It was a comment piece that you wrote."
On February 12, 2007, in The Australian, Brown wrote an article that said: "The Greens believe that we need to move beyond Australia's reliance on coal. Last week, I called on whoever wins office at this year's election to commit to a plan to phase out coal exports. That plan must be in place by the end of the next term of government so that we can move beyond coal as a matter of urgency.
"It might take decades for the task to be completed, but the scientists are telling us that we must start immediately. The coal industry plays an important role in the Australian economy, but it is also a major threat to our economic future."
Brown's summary of that piece from four years ago looks pretty accurate to me - much more than Uhlmann's version that makes it sound like Brown was calling for it to happen instantly.
Another typist, at News' Southbank compound, suggests that Brown is "trying to whip up a Murdoch conspiracy theory". It's a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that a media organisation that publicly declared it wanted to destroy you isn't providing fair coverage?
In unrelated news, here's the same typist whinging childishly about anticipated mild criticism in advance