The usual crap is dished by the Mirandas, the Piers and all the other opinionators of the merde-och press lambasting Shorten today (13/5/18). Who is Murdoch afraid of? 

You have to admire the skill. Pun writing for newspaper headline is a precise art form that—  in a couple of words on a picture — replaces 10,000 words of philosophical discourse. All the Murdoch stable newspapers have been trained into this short and snappy way to convey the news. Here the latest instalment from the New York Post:

The other big ass summit?... Beautifoooool... Can't beat that! Read from top.

Earlier this month, Alan Austin lodged a complaint with the Australian Press Council against The Australian, as reported by Independent Australia here. He has just received an emailed reply, declining to investigate the article in question.

Here is his response to the declining:

19 June 2018

Dear Ms Beasley,

Thank you for your response to this complaint.

I am most disappointed you have decided not to pursue this, as Ms Gillard has been the victim of this campaign for more than ten years now, has been comprehensively cleared by all inquiries, including a full royal commission, and yet The Australian [a Murdoch rag]’s attacks continue.

Regarding the specific complaints, your five dot points are correct:

1. Ms Gillard did not set up or assist in any way to set up any bank account. This has been one of the key falsehoods in The Australian’s campaign from the outset.
2. Mr Blewitt did not admit to any crime in his 2GB interview. The Australian falsely claims that he did.
3. Ms Gillard signalled her intention to leave the law firm well before any concerns regarding Messrs Wilson and Blewitt arose.
4. The recorded interview was not an exit interview. This is another concoction now widely believed.
5. There is no evidence whatsoever of any “misgivings” by any minister.

There was a sixth falsehood also: that Ms Gillard “had a damaging stain on her record.” Quite false.

Yes, I understand the article in question was an opinion piece, rather than a news story. This is why the complaint specified that your principle 3 was breached, namely:

      “3. Ensure ... that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.”

The article in question is about as clear an example as can be imagined of opinions “based on significantly inaccurate factual material”.

That I disagree with “the views expressed in the article” is not material. The complaint was not about his opinions. Only about his assertions of fact, which are clearly false.

It is not correct to assert that “statements of fact in the article would (not) be considered so significantly inaccurate or unfair that it is likely that a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice has occurred.”

The claim that Ms Gillard “left her employment (with Slater & Gordon) in 1995 over her work for Wilson” is false and damaging. As is any claim she was sacked for whatever reason.

So is the allegation that “senior ministers in the Gillard government at the time had grave misgivings about her history”. None had.

Your decision is particularly disappointing as the Council has already upheld a complaint against two Fairfax articles in this matter, adjudication 1566, despite the falsehoods in those articles being far less damaging to reputations.

Ms Gillard has served Australia and the international community well, and continues to do so. She does not deserve this ongoing campaign of demonstrable multiple falsehoods.

For your interest, further substantiation of the complaint was incorporated into this article at Independent Australia, published shortly after the complaint was lodged.

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-australian-continues-its-malicious-attacks-on-julia-gillard,11578

Yours faithfully,

Alan Austin
Journalist
Nîmes, France

Read from top.