The Australian at its Nadir.

Congratulations to The Australian. 99.9% of its Commentary pages content on the 29th October was devoted to bashing the left, the ABC, and to promoting its right wing bias. It delved into the past to pick out quotes it could use to effect to denigrate the left, and it sang its own praises as a responsible organ which breaks important stories.

What a pity it can’t revisit its role in the invasion of Iraq, which sees hundreds blown to pieces on a monthly basis, thanks to The Australian’s advocacy. Who can forget, ten years ago, the touching front-page photograph of the noble American showing his humanity by offering a captured Iraqi soldier a drink of water – claimed to be a demonstration of Coalition compassion – before sending him off to Abu Ghraib Prison? More than sixty were killed in suicide bombings yesterday. This rated not one word  in The Australian’s World news section. Thank goodness we have the ABC. The Australian is severely embarrassed and compromised  on this topic, and prefers, Orwell-like, to purge it from its past.
Hardly the bastion of quality journalism. It doesn’t make any money, and serves only to push the views of its foreign chairman. Surely it is time it was closed down.

Michael Moore’s Lies?

Response to a letter accusing Mike Moore of Goebbels-like propaganda.
Simon Magdulski (9/11) refers to “Michael Moore’s Goebbels-like propaganda” in the same vein as many supporters of George Bush and his agenda in Iraq. Does he believe that the constant mantra of Moore’s documentary being full of lies makes it so, or will he and his cohorts actually produce some examples of the so-called-lies?It seems to me that Michael Moore is a dedicated individual who has the courage, the intelligence and the wit to practice free speech in a democratic country which espouses such expression.

I would prefer to support people with such a dedication to public debate, ahead of the ignorant who allow Governments to do as they wish, even after all the justification for their actions have proved to be false.

circa 2004-5

On Children Overboard

This letter was emailed to The Australian on 17th August, and refers to an editorial about John Howard’s apparent lies about the ‘children overboard’ incident prior to the last election, and the revelations of a senior public servant that Howard was told the truth three days before the election. Although critical of Howard, the editorial refers to those opposed to the Iraqi War, including many letter writers and readers of the Australian, as the ‘chattering class’ and the ‘moral middle class’ indicating a certain contempt for its own readers.


Your editorials, even when rightly criticising John Howard for apparent torture of the truth, always seem to manage to stick in a carping sneer at your readers and letter writers who dare to be opposed to your war. It rather undermines the point of the editorial, and frankly seems to display some kind of guilt or embarrassment about your editorial line. 

Could it be that you see the same connection between the ‘children overboard’ and the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ depiction of “truth” that we see, and therefore feel compelled to defend your actions? When The Australian celebrates its fifty years of survival in the year 2014, this period will surely be seen as the lowest point in its editorial integrity. Your embarrassment is understandable, but inexcusable.

circa 2004


Letter to The Australian in response to Greg Sheridan lumping people who want to celebrate the 150th year since the Eureka stockade somehow with the opposition to the purchase of Abrams tanks.
Greg Sheridan is even outdoing himself with his latest dose of hyperbolic hogwash. (17/2/2005) I was always taught at school that the opening paragraph of an essay should generally summarise the content to follow, so can we assume all these ‘lefties’ Alexander Downer gets so rabid about – the types who celebrate the Eureka Stockade and want to ‘rival’ Anzac Day are the same critics who are against the acquisition of the new Abrams Tanks Mr Sheridon goes into raptures about?His article has an army of straw men to do battle with. The same people who want to ‘rival’ Anzac day are the same people who support Eureka are the same people who oppose the army and are the same people who oppose the tanks and oppose democracy. As he states:“Of course the tank also gives the Australian Government the option to deploy the army further afield if it wants to. That’s what the critics don’t like. It’s called democracy.”If Mr Sheridan wants to go into orgasmic spasms about Abrams tanks he is perfectly entitled to, but as the foreign editor his credibility would be less tainted if he stuck to the point and kept his personal angst out of it. It’s called credibility.