ABC Reins In Faine

Wonders will never cease!  The obnoxious Jon Faine has, at last, been censured by the ABC over his disgracefully prejudiced and unfair treatment of Michael Smith and Editor-at-Large, Mark Baker during their ‘right of reply’ interview conducted on 23^rd November, 2012.  Faine’s treatment of both men was appalling.

I posted about the incident on the 24^th November, last year.

Yesterday, the ABC’s Audience & Consumer Affairs, who, I imagine, received a truckload of complaints from listeners who had come to the end of their tether with Local Radio 774’s week mornings host, Faine and his obvious bias, issued an apology citing there had been a “lapse in standards”.  Now, there’s an understatement in relation to Jon Faine.  Faine has repeatedly illustrated he has only one standard – and that is standard according to the political far Left.  No other standards need apply for an interview with Faine because they will be belittled and talked over.  This seems to be Faine’s preferred tactic to censor dissenting opinion!

I have a question for the ABC.   If 2GB had to attend a radio re-education camp, according to an ACMA ruling and radio broadcaster Alan Jones was directed to offer an on-air apology to Lebanese muslims in December of last year for comments he made in 2005 which were deemed inappropriate in our New World of political correctness, then surely the same should apply to the ABC and 774 morning host, Jon Faine.  Will Local Radio 774 and  Jon Faine be marched off to the ABC’s (non-existent, apparently) equivalent of ACMA’s re-education camp?   Unfortunately Auntie is immune, generally, to ACMA’s fangs, which is a great pity, in my opinion.   Apparently, ACMA will only intervene when there has been a resolution stalemate.  No level playing field.  One rule for the bulk of mainstream media and another toothless rule for the ABC.  This anomaly must change as the ABC is now a large mainstream media player.   The ABC must not be given free rein to self-regulate.  It has to stop, regardless of some common sense determination by the Audience & Consumer Affairs in relation to the antics of Jon Faine.

More importantly, will Faine be required to offer both Michael Smith and Mark Baker an on-air apology?  If not – why not?  ABC – you know that would be the right thing to do.  Simply putting up some token grovel statement on Faine’s website and on the ABC’s Upheld Complaints page is not good enough.

By the way, at the time of writing this post, no such apology appears on Faine’s website which can be found here.

Further reading, The Age and The Australian.

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within

Malcolm Colless has an interesting piece in Quadrant Online outlining the roughness of the media playing field as it stands today under the current Labor regime purporting to be running this country.  Into the ground - but that's another story.  There is nothing level about the media playing field when it comes to 'their' ABC.   Not 'our' ABC - although we all pay for the thing.

The socialist bias within the ABC is now no longer something to joke about.  There is not one conservative presenter on radio or television.  Programme presenters such as Jon Faine (Local Radio 774)  Leigh Sales  (7.30) and Tony Jones (Q & A) no longer feel shackled by the ABC's Code of Practice and fly their political preference flags with gay abandon.

Should commerical media fall victim to constrictions and, by definition, censorship if the government of the day gets its way, then the powerful media outlet, the ABC, should be subject to the same regulatory controls.  Why should the ABC be treated differently?  It is in the media business afterall, although taxpayer funded, which is all the more reason the ABC should be accountable.
...........................................................................................

QED
The ABC's indecent advantage
by Malcolm Colless

November 30, 2012

There has been a lot of whinging lately by the free-to-air TV broadcasters about lopsided competition rules. Free TV Australia, the commercial television lobby group, has urged the government to impose tax penalties on the major international online companies to create “a level playing field”. The FTAs should know all about this, as they have enjoyed years of unfair advantage over any competition in their patch.

But the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with the help of its owner, our Federal Government, is well positioned to take advantage of a very uneven playing field in the future digital delivery of news and opinion online.

The reason is quite simple. While traditional commercial media companies, particularly print operators, are finding it increasingly necessary to build pay walls around their digital content, the ABC can, and presumably will, continue to provide its content for free, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

On a “share of voices” meter, which measures across-the-board media impact, the ABC leaves the rest of the industry for dead -- and it always has via the sheer number of its taxpayer-funded outlets.

The spectre that this raises is of ABC dominance on the news and current affairs digital platforms already battling for market share and advertising revenue as traditional media outlets attempt to cope with a seismic shift in community reading and viewing habits. The fact that the ABC does not need to worry about establishing pay walls to underwrite the value of its content puts it in a very powerful and potentially monopolistic position. While the Labor Government may see this as a comfortable alternative to a hostile press it raises serious questions about the free flow of information, a basic component of any democracy.

The government has already taken a giant step towards controlling this information with the establishment of the National Broadband Network. It would have us believe the multi-billion dollar NBN is necessary to shore up Australia’s competitiveness in global markets, having argued that this task cannot be successfully carried out by private enterprise. Time will tell if this policy assumption is correct, but the government’s aim in the meantime is to nationalise the information superhighway and be its content gatekeeper.

All of this is pertinent to Labor’s desire to put more shackles on an already heavily regulated press in order to placate left-wing political pressures in its own minority-government camp. The opportunity for government action on this comes from the inquiry it ordered into media regulation (it would prefer it to be known as “reform”) conducted by former judge Ray Finkelstein.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who has carriage of this issue ( and ministerial control of the ABC and SBS), may well see the traditional press as a soft target. We will see about that. But he has learned that trying to interfere with the flow of internet information can be a dangerous game indeed.

In 2008 Conroy unveiled a scheme to legislate mandatory filtering by internet service providers of Refused Classification-rated material hosted on overseas servers. This brought an immediate and hostile response from internet users, particularly when it was found that the Government’s intended hit list went well beyond child-abuse websites and the like.

Despite deferring a final decision until after the 2010 federal election Conroy maintained his support for the scheme, but yielded to unrelenting opposition earlier this month when he announced the proposed legislation had been abandoned.

So it will be interesting to see how far Cabinet is prepared to go in the face of Finkelstein’s recommendation for all media outlets to be covered by a new “super-media regulatory body” which would be called the News Media Council.

Whether this can be justified in terms other than those of naked politics is another matter. But whatever the merits of that case, the fact remains the ABC has strenuously argued that what may be good for commercial media’s goose is not good for its own, taxpayer-funded gander, meaning that it needs to be left to operate under its own internal complaints system.



Veteran journalist Malcolm Colless believes in freedom of speech -- and a level playing field

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/11/the-abc-s-indecent-advantage

The ABC Is Required To Be Impartial

Last Friday (23/11) Jon Faine, presenter of Mornings With Jon Faine, weekdays on ABC Local Radio 774 (Victoria)  most probably breached the ABC's Code of Practice, particularly Section 2 which relates to accuracy (according to the standards of recognised journalism); Section 4 which covers impartiality and diversity of perspectives: weight of evidence; fair treatment and open-mindedness and Section 5 relating to fair and honest dealings.  I suggest you listen to his broadcast and determine for yourself whether or not Michael Smith was given an opportunity (unhindered) to respond to the smearing Faine inflicted on him during his programme which went to air on the 22nd November, 2012.    I don't believe he was and that would appear to be in breach of Clause 5.3 of the ABC's Code of Practice.

The same treatment was dished out to The Age's Editor-at-large, Mark Baker.

Faine's segment was a follow-up of his pathetic attempt to cover, in his own lunchbox, the AWU/Gillard/Wilson/Slater & Gordon affair which went to air the previous day.  Faine, of course, pummels away at his audience by saying Prime Minister Gillard has nothing to answer and has done no wrong and he, himself, must be thick and two bricks" and he "just doesn't get it."  He doesn't "get" what all the fuss is about.  Well, he wouldn't "get it" if he is too left-blinkered to do some basic research.

Shock-Jock Faine's role as an ABC presenter is to be impartial.  He is not supposed to be a propaganda-peddler for the ALP.  Nor should Faine apply his own form of censorship by talking over guests and callers to deliberately stifle broadcast of their views.

I believe Faine must apologise, on air, to Messrs. Smith and Baker.  Both deserved some respect.  Respect Faine denied them.  Perhaps an apology should also be extended to Mr. Ralph Blewitt, an associate of PM Gillard's ex boyfriend, Bruce Wilson and who later became the fall-guy as Wilson went about syphoning off money from a dodgy slush fund set up on Wilson's instructions by the then equity partner with the firm, Slater & Gordon, Julia Gillard.

All the evidence has been compiled through the thorough investigative journalism of one Michael Smith and can be found on his Blog.

In Thursday's AWU segment, oracle Faine attempted to discredit Blewitt by referring to some scuttlebutt lifted from a Western Australian commercial radio programme as proof Blewitt was untrustworthy, a con-man.  Of course, Blewitt has already admitted he has had a pretty shady past.  However, Faine, in his infinite wisdom relied on the words of "Penny" who identified herself as Blewitt's sister.  I put it to Faine:  Did you bother to check the bona fides of this caller "Penny" before you used her words on the ABC to smear Ralph Blewitt?

I don't think the ABC should retain the services of someone who waves his political affiliations so publicly.  Such bias within the ABC is surely going to backfire sooner or later.  This organisation relies on funding from the taxpayer, afterall.  An awful lot of people are calling for the wrecking ball to go through the joint as soon as the Coalition take over at the next election.

It was a disgraceful week for Jon Faine and a disgraceful week for the ABC.

ABC Radio 774 & A Shock-Jock

Here is a repost of Andrew Bolt's brilliant put-down of 774's morning presenter, Jon Faine.  Faine made a classic jerk of himself today.  Clearly, he was not fully across the subject of Prime Minister Gillard's involvement as a partnered solicitor in the AWU fiasco.  As such, he should not have opened his mouth.  What happens to his radio career as a result is entirely of his own doing.  I certainly will be watching with keen interest.  Faine has form for being obnoxious, not only to guests he disagrees with but also to callers.

The ABC has been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they are right now, having to recognise there is a story which is actually in the public interest - not some non-event as they have portrayed this scandal for many months.

The 7.30 Report's Leigh Sales is to interview Nick Styant-Browne, one of the ex Slater & Gordon partners, tonight, Thursday, 22nd November, 2012.  I wonder if Leigh will try and shout him down?

I will have more to say on this in another post.

.................................................................................

ABC presenter makes hash of defending Gillard

Andrew Bolt

NOVEMBER

22

2012

(11:45am)

Melbourne ABC host Jon Faine was vehement today in defence of the Prime Minister, yet has not based his faith on facts. Let’s check his editorial:

…it’s to do with the slush fund that she was helping to establish for people who were acting as a group within the AWU at the time.

Fudge. Well, less than a group, Jon. It essentially operated just for Bruce Wilson and, to some extent, for his bagman, Ralph Blewett. And it was set up for their benefit as individuals, not AWU officials.

Well, at that stage, I do remember laughing out loud on air and saying since when should a client not act for someone because they might be breaking the law?

Red herring. No one to my knowledge has ever suggested Gillard should not have taken as a client someone who “might be breaking the law”.

Then Julia Gillard was criticised for not dobbing in her clients when it became apparent that they might have broken the law.  Well, since when does a lawyer dob in their own clients to the police when someone is making a complaint about them? It’s alleged that she should herself have gone to the police, which is preposterous and would’ve been an unethical act, if not a breach of duty to her client and a breach of confidentiality.

Gross oversimplication. Misleading. Porbably false. Gillard actually had two clients here - her boyfriend, Wilson., and the AWU itself, which was her firm’s primary client. When she found out Wilson’s slush fund had fraudently taken funds ostensibly paid to what donors believed was the AWU for workplace safety for its members, she had a duty to at the very least notify the AWU. She did not.  She arguably could have also notifed police of the frauds when told about them without breaching anything told her her in confidence by Wilson, since they were brought to her attention not by Wilson himself but others. On this point, here is the opinion of former High Court judge Michael Kirby:

Question from audience: Look, there are plenty of people in the legal profession that seem to have moral compass deficit disorder. If a lawyer naively helps a friend to set up a slush fund, and then subsequently finds that the friend has used it to misappropriate half a million dollars, is there a legal or moral obligation for the lawyer to report that to the police, the knowledge of that matter?

Kirby: It sounds as though it’s getting a little bit close to a real live problem and I know it could be presented as hypothetical, but I sort of have got very, very strong antennae and I can sniff out a real live problem pretty well. (Audience laughter). And I’ve gone out of the business of giving legal advice, but generally speaking, in our sort of society, if a person is aware of a serious crime and doesn’t report it to the police, that is what we call misprision of a felony; if there is a felony, you have to report it, it is a citizen’s duty. Now that law might have been modified in Victoria and other states, you’d have to look that up, but that’s the way the law generally operates.”

Here is High Court justice William Deane in Baker v Campbell, 1983:

Deane: Moreover, if the (doctrine of legal professional) privilege were confined to disclosure in judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceedings, it is difficult to explain why, logically, the lawyer who fails voluntarily to disclose the wrongdoing of his client to the appropriate administrative officer does not, in the absence of some particular justification, stand guilty of the offence of misprision of felony.

Doug Meagher QC has discussed this at length:

Meagher: Bankes LJ at page 526 when considering an allegation that the accountant had breached an implied term of confidentiality, said:

“ ... There may no doubt be cases to which the rule laid down by the learned judge may be applied, as for instance confidential communications to a professional adviser as to the proposed commission of a crime, or as to the proposed commission of a civil wrong upon an individual.  A contract to keep such a communication secret may well be considered an illegal contract, and the duty to the public to disclose the criminal or illegal intention may properly be held to override the private duty to respect and protect the client’s confidence.”..

Wood VC put it in vivid phrase: ‘There is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity.’

In Weld-Blundell v Stephens Bankes LJ rather suggested that the exception was limited to the proposed or contemplated commission of as crime or civil wrong; but I should have thought that was too limited.  The exception should extend to crimes frauds and misdeeds, both those actually committed as well as those in contemplation, provided always - and this is essential - that the disclosure is justified in the public interest.  The reason is because no private obligations can dispense with that universal one which lies on every member of the society to discover every design which may be formed, contrary to the laws of the society, to destroy the public welfare…

The disclosure must, I should think, be to one who has a proper interest to receive the information.  Thus it would be proper to disclose a crime to the police…

The existence of the exception to the privilege was firmly established in Australia following the obiter dictum in Varawa v Howard Smith & Co (1910) 10 CLR 382. At page 385 Griffith CJ said:

“The rule was laid down very distinctly by Lord Halsbury LC in Bullivant v The Attorney General for Victoria:

‘I think the broad propositions may be very simply stated:  for the perfect administration of justice, and for the protection of confidence which exists between a solicitor and his client, it has been established as a principle of public policy that those confidential communications shall not be subject to production.  But to that, of course, this limitation has been put, and justly put, that no Court can be called upon to protect communications which are in themselves parts of a criminal or unlawful proceeding.’

The rule is very well illustrated in the case of R. v Cox & Railton in which the communication stated and put in evidence was a communication made by a solicitor to his client for the purpose of enabling him to carry out an unlawful enterprise.”

This says nothing about the duty to report; but once the privilege is removed, the shield vanishes and the ordinary duty cast on all citizens to report a threatened crime applies to the lawyer as well.

Moreover, Gillard, in explaining why she did not contact authorities about the frauds did not cite client confidentiality as an excuse. The reason she gave was that inquiries were already under way when she found out. There is reason to doubt the factual basis for this claim.

It’s alleged that at one stage she was party to a fraud, which has been met with stern letters from Julia Gillard’s lawyers, and you might notice a prominent apology published in The Age today, saying whoops, we might have gone too far.

False. Straw man. There was no such apology and no such admission by The Age. The item referred to is here. Check for yourself. Faine also oversimplifies in referring to allegations that Gillard “was party to a fraud” and then claiming this was false. In fact, the allegation has consistently been that Gillard created a slush fund used by her boyfriend to commit fraud, and that she insists she had no idea those frauds were intended or committed.

Then it was alleged that there were files that are missing and those files it seems now are turning up in the registrars of the Federal Court and elsewhere. Then it was alleged that files were missing at Slater and Gordon and it was pointed out that files get destroyed after seven or eight or so years because it’s actually just impossible to keep them all and on and on and on the allegations go.

Misleading. In fact, four files were alleged to have gone missing - two in the Federal Court, one in Slater & Gordon and one in the WA Corporate Affairs Commission. Only one of the files, in the Federal Court, has since been located. Slater & Gordon is unable to confirm what Faine implies - that it’s own missing file was destroyed as a matter of routine after seven or eight years. Indeed, it claims not to be sure the file even existed, although Gillard is recorded being questioned about it in a taped record of interview with her partners in 1995.

Today as you’ve already heard on AM, one of the key witnesses in inverted commas to all of this has arrived back in Australia. His name is Ralph Blewitt...

Smear. Blewitt is indeed a key witness, without inverted commas. Correspondence demonstrates he was one of the two people for whom Gillard helped to create the slush fund, and placed the notification of it in the press. Gillard also claims to have witnessed his donation of power of attorney to Wilson to buy a house in his name.

However, on arrival [Blewett has] already said that he knows nothing about events in Victoria, but he may be able to shed some insight into what was alleged to have gone on eighteen years ago in Western Australia. Of course Victoria Police don’t investigate things that happen in West Australia. The West Australia Police do, but that’s for Mr Blewitt, his lawyers and the Victoria Police to sort out between them.

Red herring. Misleading. The complaint Victoria Police are investigating relates to the power of attorney Gillard says she witnessed as a solicitor in Victoria, donated by Blewitt in favor of her boyfriend, Wilson. Blewitt alleges Gillard was not present when he made it out in Perth, and the document was backdated. Blewett claims it was misused by Wilson to purchase a property in Victoria in his name, using stolen funds. Blewett is also expected to discuss renovations to Julia Gillard’s Abbottsford house. All this is well within the scope of Victoria Police to investigate. Blewett’s reference to not knowing about events in Victoria refers to the creation and operation of a second slush fund created in Victoria by Wilson. Faine should know all this.

How could Faine be so sure Gillard has no questions to answer if he himself does not understand what’s been alleged or demonstrated?

It seems to me that Faine instinctively wants to clear Gillard without even knowing what the case against her is.

(Note: Gillard says she did not know of Wilson’s frauds and did not benefit from them. She did not know the house was brought with stolen funds. She says paid for all her own renovations.)

UPDATE

Michael Smith rang Faine for a right of reply, but was not given one.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_presenter_makes_hash_of_defending_gillard/