Topic: big media
Gerard Henderson is an ideological dolt speaking as a lawyer with a bit of community media experience.
His column back in lead place on the opinion pages today is all square wrong on the issue of legal reportage of a big controversial terrorism trial. We commented just now on the Sydney Morning Herald page and await moderation:
This slur is sly and wrong, indeed a cheap shot.
Cameron like all real journalists, not slick opinion writers, has an obligation to not bias a jury or a court, or be seen to be pressuring same in the big media. For her to load her language one way or the other would be wrong. To say "so called" evidences due agnosticism appropriate to the ABC prior to the jury decision.
In this sense GH is simply projecting his own jaundiced view of the ABC given his side's long known view that the ABC 'is our enemies talking to our friends'. In other words projecting his own prejudice against the national broadcaster.
The World Today reporter does not have that same logic given the timeline. But legal reporting is notoriously challenging: Will it go on appeal? What was the evidence actually led by both parties. Why did it take the jury weeks to decide?
This is all consistent with 'the golden thread' as Rumpole/Mortimer states being 'innocent until proven guilty'.
What Henderson and the Sydney Morning Herald need to address is this: What is the funding source for "Gerard Henderson ..executive director of The Sydney Institute". Because famously the SI refuse to reveal their corporate and political donors.
Now that's circumstantial evidence of bias.