|
Gerard
Jackson
Matilda published a hit job on
Professor Spurr written by Wendy Bacon and Chris Graham. Motivated by
ideological-driven spite this pair based their piece on private emails by
Professor Spurr that had been illegally obtained. This behaviour would not
surprise anyone with knowledge of Wendy Bacon’s lack of ethics. Like all
dogmatic leftists she thinks ethical behaviour is for the shmucks, meaning
those who disagree with her unthinking leftism.
Wendy
Bacon refers to herself as an “investigative
journalist who is also a political activist”.
That this is an oxymoron never occurred to her. She was a leftwing activist,
and still is, not a real journalist. And like all of these phony journalists
she was prepared to lie and cheat to advance a leftwing agenda. This paragon
of virtue publically admitted (The
Australian 24 January 1999) that Jim McClelland confessed to
her and others that Lionel Murphy, Labor Party hero and High Court Judge, had
been corrupt. Not only that, McClelland, who had been a prominent member of
the Labor Party, also confessed to perjuring himself at Murphy’s trial thus
securing Murphy’s acquittal. Now let us try to comprehend the full import of
what Wendy Bacon did.
She
justified concealing the admission of perjury by claiming confidentiality.
What needs to be noted is that any reasonable view of “journalistic
privilege”, a concept with no legal standing, cannot include a criminal act,
especially a serious one. The other point is that by making the same confession
to a number of other people McClelland made a mockery out of any claim to
confidentiality, something his leftwing media admirers fully understand.
Yet
leftist journalists like Bacon, Brian Toohey and David Marr still concealed
the truth from the public. Why? After all, perjury is an offence that strikes
at the very heart of the legal system, particularly when it involves the
highest court in the land. Bacon inadvertently revealed these so-called
journalists’ ideological motive when she wrote that “McClelland was only one
of several confidential sources on the progressive
[emphasis added] side of politics…” For progressive read left-wing.
What
guaranteed these phony reporters silence was ideology, pure and simple.
Without a shadow of a doubt, if McClelland had been a conservative judge this
story would have been splashed across the front pages of every paper in the
country — and rightly so. But McClelland was a leftist and that made all the
difference and to their leftwing mindset that justified their lying and
cheating. These so-called journalists had a choice: uphold the rule of law
and so protect the integrity of the High Court or aid and abet Murphy and
McClelland in their corrupt activities. They chose the latter, as did the
Labor Party itself. These actions render any discussion about the
‘profession’ of journalistic ethics superfluous. In other words, what is
there to discuss?
Wendy
Bacon and her comrades are living proof that the so-called profession of
journalism is morally and ideologically corrupt. It certainly helps explain
why so many Australian journalists rushed to Clinton’s defence while pouring
scorn on his critics, even going so far as to twist the truth. It explains
why they savaged Howard and Bush and why they drooled over Obama and why they
sneer at Tony Abbott.
The
sordid McClelland-Murphy scandal alone makes it abundantly clear that we
simply cannot believe what the mass of ‘journalists’ tell us. It made clear
the fact that for the media, meaning the mass of ‘journalists’, ideology counts
more than truth and integrity. This means that which side of the political
fence you stand on will determine how you will be treated and to hell with
any notions of bourgeois honesty and fairness. We can at least thank Wendy
Bacon’s revelations for bringing home these facts so forcefully.
Note: Wendy Bacon followed her revelation
with an article (The Australian,
2 February 1999) in which she tried to justify her actions in not revealing
McClelland’s perjury. It seems that the Declaration of Principles of the
International Federation of Journalists declared that “journalists should
respect confidences in all circumstances”. (Tell that to Professor Spurr).
What pompous Rot! Journalists are not priests and they have no confessionals.
Would, for example, Bacon expect any journalist to protect the identity of a
serial killer because he confessed in confidence?
Bacon,
Toohey, Marr and the rest of the pack knowing betrayed the public interest by
allowing a corrupt left-wing judge to sit on the High Court bench. The way
things are in the media today, journalists who mouth-off about ethics have as
much credibility as a pimp who preaches the virtues of chastity to his girls.
|
