Menu lock

Posted

Sep 5, 2011

Herald Sun “editor” calls for riots

Over the weekend, an "editor" at the Heral

Pure Poison IconOver the weekend, an “editor” at the Herald Sun calls for riots:

Milne was meant to be on tomorrow’s Insiders. Now he is off the panel for good.

This shutting down of debate is sinister and shameful. Had John Howard tried it, there would be a riot in the Left. There should be a riot about it now.

What is it with the right and violence?

PS “The work being done to close down any scrutiny of Julia Gillard’s past relationship with a conman is downright sinister.”

“Scrutiny”? Of what? What precisely are you alleging she should have done differently? Are you seriously suggesting that she should be damned now for once dating someone who later turned out to be somewhat of a rogue? Are you saying that anyone who’s ever made a relationship mistake has a cloud hanging over their professional judgment? How is that anything other than infantile, debate-wrecking muck-raking?

And how is it “shutting down debate” for the ABC, which is broadcasting a live program where it would be held liable for defamatory remarks made by one of its panelists, to decline to feature one who admits that he’s been told by his employers’ lawyers that a certain claim is defamatory and then publishes it anyway, forcing an embarrassing correction?

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

36 comments

36 thoughts on “Herald Sun “editor” calls for riots

  1. What about their right to say what they like about the PM, unfettered by accuracy or law? | Pure Poison

    […] Remember the putrid smear story about Gillard last September that, after wiser heads at News Ltd remembered there were such things as defamation laws, was deleted? (And here. And here.) The one that 2UE pulled before sacking Michael Smith? The one that caused Insiders to uninvite Glenn Milne in case he tried making his dubious claims on their program, for which the ABC would then be liable? (Prompting one Herald Sun associate editor to call for “a riot”.) […]

  2. returnedman

    Ha! Oh, Andrew, you’re a riot! **chuckles**

  3. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    This call for violence is sinister and shameful. Had Phillip Adams tried it, he would be ridiculed by the Right. There should be ridicule about it now.

  4. Bellistner

    podrick said:

    He SUSPECTS!

    But cannot confirm. 😆

  5. Adam Rope

    Qantize @ 28, once more I’m beaten to the punch…..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14797365

    Phone hacking scandal: James Murdoch ‘told of email’

    Former News of the World legal manager Tom Crone has told MPs he was “certain” he told James Murdoch about an email which indicated phone hacking at the paper went beyond one rogue reporter.

    ——————

    Giving evidence to the committee, Mr Crone said: “It was clear evidence that phone-hacking was taking place beyond Clive Goodman. It was the reason that we had to settle the case. And in order to settle the case we had to explain the case to Mr Murdoch and get his authority to settle.

    “So certainly it would certainly have been discussed. I cannot remember the detail of the conversation. And there isn’t a note of it. The conversation lasted for quite a short period, I would think probably less than 15 minutes or about 15 minutes. It was discussed. But exactly what was said I cannot recall.”

  6. jules

    Angra @27, ironically the real free press is via the internet.

    Honestly without it … alot would be unable to say anything.

    This stuff with Milne and Bolt may seem like a specific thing, its just part of a strategy of constant background noise making Gillard look bad. It doesn’t matter what it is this week, it’ll be something else next week.

    The is a paper I’m going to have to reread cos this reminds me of it a very lot. Its called From PSYOP to mindwar, and was written in 1980 by Major Micheal Aquino, who also founded The Temple of Set with some former members of the Church of Satan.

    http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/MindWar.pdf

    Considering it was written 30 years ago its rather prescient.

    Its late, I’m probably a bit too tired to think straight.

  7. cck

    I love it when you comment on an Andrew Bolt ‘Free Speech for us oppressed’ topic… and he doesn’t publish it.

  8. quantize

    And we’re supposed to believe the filth in their business in the UK is isolated??

    Why would anyone believe this company is run any different when they only retract old lies for the purposes of smear under the threat defamation and do nothing whilst their ‘star’ absurdly attempts to frame it as a freedom of press issue.

    Is this their idea of accountability?

    I’ll be calling my mp to insist on a media enquiry. If these filthy grubs think they’re above us all, then who knows what else they’re up to?

  9. Angra

    Mr Freedom defies his editors again – “I make not the slightest suggestion that Gillard ever did anything underhand or remotely illegal. For me the issue was her judgment and the potential impact of the issue on her leadership. But now all that is as nothing compared to the issue now: a defence of a free press. ”

    A “free press”? Free to defame and slime, distort and make things up, and then threaten any opposing voices with legal action? Or if he’s caught with his pants down bleat about “freedom of the press”.

    The man is an embarrassment – even to News Ltd with their honourable and obviously scrupulously-enforced code of conduct.

  10. quantize

    Laughable really…the moron should have been sacked..not let off lightly.

    Predictably Bolt attempts to fan the flames…pathetic.

  11. Matthew of Canberra

    “the southbank oracle lays it on the line, sort of.”

    Subject to all of the usual self-defeating disclaimers, of course.

    If AB actually knows something about the “other considerations” why smith has been “censored”, then why not just say it? He could just add lots of weasel words and avoid identifying anyone by name, and it should be un-sueable and well within the bounds of the sort of rumor and scuttlebutt he’s published before. The more he goes on like this, the more striking is the lack of, well, anything.

    Based on today’s comments from fairfax, I think their genuine concern is that they’re not going to let a presenter make fools of them. This particular story seems to be attracting commentators who have more enthusiasm on their side than evidence (or skepticism, apparently).

    I’ve seen what is said to be the stat dec in question (scans are easy enough to find), and it’s really underwhelming. It’s also an old story – even this “latest news” is from august last year. If AB reckons there really is something new that needs to be “debated”, then just tell us what it is. All I see is some hacks trying to beat up old, discredited claims with a few more inadvisable (and apparently unfounded) accusations. Is this REALLY their big story?

    He’s right about one thing, though. This story really is all about judgement. Not the prime minister’s, though.

  12. hegemoniac

    Andrew Bolt says that Media Watch should defend Michael Smith???? From who/what???

    The entire legal system?

    I’ll bet most of his readers won’t ask that question because they all enjoy the self perpetuated myth that they’re being persecuted. idiots.

    I also think it’s interesting that Catherine Deveny can be dropped for making some “offensive” tweets about the logies, yet Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith just get a slap on the wrist and have their respective management defend them.

    I think the moral of the story here is that it’s ok to think that all women should be responsible for their past relationships even when they didn’t know about wrongdoing but it’s totally unacceptable for a chick to use her mobile if it offends some people.

    Or that Fairfax are chicken sh**.

  13. podrick

    Surlysimon it’s more than just a conspiracy, the southbank oracle lays it on the line, sort of.

    [Despite what Media Watch claimed last night, the decision to censor Smith’s broadcasts seems to have been based not on the usual legal grounds, because the interview and some subsequent material had been properly legalled. No, I suspect other considerations were behind it, and Media Watch should defend Smith, not slime him.

    The issue isn’t so much whether you think this story is old news and a smear, or whether you think its relevant news about an issue that has never been fully investigated or properly answered]

    He SUSPECTS!

  14. quantize

    I think this whole story can be summed up as thus :

    the ABC at least has some professional standards…which is a lot more than can be said for News Ltd

  15. monkeywrench

    Has anyone ever been given the bum’s rush from Insiders before?

  16. quantize

    [On Monday, I’m tipping, a witness with a statutory declaration will come forward and implicate Julia Gillard directly in another scandal…]

    Meeeeeeeeemorieeeeeeeessss!

  17. Angra

    All we know is that there’s still no contact with the colony, and that a xenomorph may be involved.

    Excuse me sir, a-a what?

    A xenomorph.

    It’s a bughunt

  18. jules

    Fred maybe they are unfamiliar with the concept of “professional standards”.

  19. fred p

    Milne was meant to be on tomorrow’s Insiders. Now he is off the panel for good.

    This shutting down of debate is sinister and shameful. Had John Howard tried it, there would be a riot in the Left. There should be a riot about it now.

    Do these people think Gillard runs the ABC? Because that’s the only way Milne being taken off Insiders can consititute the government shutting down debate.

    I can see how it wouldn’t occur to anyone employed at News Ltd that maybe the ABC has professional standards and might give the boot to someone who didn’t meet them.

  20. Holden Back

    LHO, I well remember that riot led by David Marr, writing in Quartely Essay Issue 26, His Master’s Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate under Howard in 2007 ISBN 978-1-86395-405-1.

    Leaving aside any other limitations of his journalism, the fact that Milne can’t be trusted not to make injudicious, unsupported statements in print, let alone on live television would have nothing to do with these developments.

  21. AR

    Lies & distortion are not debatable, they are extruded for effect and even when shown to be fabrications, the damage remains in the minds of the credulous, gullible & witless, no matter the corrections published or defamation action. Speaking of which, Gillard should go hard for damages as she’ll need something for retirement.
    Job done, with bonus points for then being able to complain of being censored.

  22. Chris Tallis

    I’m up for a riot. I am also wondering if the lead caller for this riot will also join in?
    If I and a few mates go rioting and get arrested for violent anti-social behaviour can we just say that we were mere followers and the “Second Least Trusted Voice In Australian Media!” was the instigator?

    I wonder how this would be viewed if someone like Clive Hamilton called for a riot?
    Well I don’t actually I am certain we would have been greeted with claims of WIIWTLAV? and worse.

    But it is yet another nail in their own coffin, to be held and used against them when the appropriate time comes. I only wish the majority of people were listening. I know I’ll move my riot onto the masterchef set, then people will notice.

  23. Lee Harvey Oddworld

    Had John Howard tried it, there would be a riot in the Left.

    After Howard stacked the ABC board with right-wing blowhards (Windschuttle, Albrechtsen, et al) I was one of those arrested for marching with pitchforks, torching cars, smashing windows … it was total anarchy.

  24. monkeywrench

    I wish to protest about the arrest of journalists Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson. This shameful attempt to silence debate means that there are vital stories hidden in the voicemail accounts of murdered children that the public will not now be able to hear. In a similar manner, I take issue with the sacking of Glenn Milne from Insiders. This means that there are many completely untrue stories that Mr. Milne will now only be able to present to the public via collateral sources such as the champion of speechy freedoms and truthiness, Andrew Bolt.

  25. Ray Hunt

    Howard tried by various means to prevent television coverage of the 2007 election campaign debates, sparking a furious reaction from those well known lefties at, er, Channel 9 and The Canberra Press Club.

  26. FatCat

    Funny thing, if a teenager in the UK posted the same remark on Facebook, they would now be doing 3 months or so inside. Editor of a Murdoch rag? “it’s hyperbole with a bit of journalistic licence thrown in, Your Honour.”

    I always love how the icons of the anti-elite are so elitist. Anyone seen how many cars John Laws has in his garage? Try to get into the same restaurant as AJ?

  27. Durham Red

    Just imagine what he’d be calling for if a newspaper pulled a Milne column.

  28. Bellistner

    Only Julie Bishops. 😀

  29. Dave C

    This shutting down of debate is sinister and shameful. Had John Howard tried it, there would be a riot in the Left.

    The logic of this is fascinating. If John Howard had shut down debate in a manner Bolt finds deserving of a riot, why would only “the Left” have rioted? Where would you have been, Andrew?

  30. Matthew of Canberra

    Just out of interest, does anyone know if death-stares can be transmitted over the internet? How about laser-beams of fury? I’m just wondering if I should unplug the router before going to bed. I wouldn’t want the cat to become an innocent bystander while I’m safely ensconced in my anti-outrage faraday cage.

  31. Matthew of Canberra

    Not too surprisingly, media watch did a fine job of skewering the protagonists in this sorry tale, while simultaneously discussing the allegations that are supposedly being “suppressed”.

    Holmes suggested that AB might be a bit disappointed in this episode. I can’t imagine why. I mean – this is what debate is all about, isn’t it? Getting the facts out there, refuting the nonsense and informing the public about what ne’er-do-wells in the mediagovernment have been up to.

    The only question now is … how with the bollinator respond? I have to admit my form’s been a bit off lately. I expected him to have a grump about the hicks special last week, but he was distracted by another story. But that story is the one on MW tonight, so maybe I’m on a winner here …

    Will we get catatonic silence? Apoplectic rage, with vaguely-worded suggestions followed by blanket disclaimers denying that he’s actually written anything at all? Or something like “I’m not saying anything because I’m being silenced – SILENCED!”?

    The issue here clearly isn’t that AB has done anything wrong. There’s absolutely no suggestion of that. The question is one of judgement, and whether he can afford any more of this kind of bad publicity …

  32. quantize

    Oh the poor victims!!! being silenced for repeating old bullshit and empty lies…silenced on their blogs, their columns, their TV shows!

    Oh how will we poor defenseless victims turn this tide! what with out 70% media ownerships and relentless torrent of sleaze ever get redress!?

    ..on a related note, i happened to have my eyes burnt out by actually witnessing a few moments of the Gina Monologues as replayed on Media Watch..

    I have never seen a potato talk before..

  33. quantize

    [This shutting down of debate is sinister and shameful]

    Oh would that be the ‘debate’ where they printed Mr Milne’s (EDIT} that they had to retract?

    Maybe they should clean up their own backyard before they go lecturing the ABC on anything…

  34. Sancho

    Do the Liberal Party and Murdoch journos really want us to review the integrity of their lovers and exes?