RSS Feed
Last night [17/6/10] the ABC’s ‘Lateline‘ ran a report based on an unethical “sting” conducted by the ‘Sunday Times’:
… Undercover reporters posed as representatives of a billionaire conservationist who was willing to, in effect, buy the votes of those countries to change from pro to anti whaling.
Europe correspondent Philip Williams spoke to one of the reporters involved, Jonathan Calvert, who requested his face not be shown on television. …
This is yet another example of ethically corrupt behaviour, universally common across the Murdoch empire. Curiously, the fact that this entrapment is unethical was not even mentioned in the ‘Lateline’ report.
With regard to clandestine devices and subterfuge, Britain’s Press Complaints Commission’s “Editors’ Code of Practice” states:
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Attempting to suggest bribery and corruption by engaging in bribery and corruption proves nothing. It’s like a journalist sneaking into your house and shooting you, and then publishing a headline: “Householder Involved In Shooting Crime”. It’s false logic.
The “public interest” must be proven by the person “engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge”, and in this case it wasn’t. If there is corruption, then evidence of that corruption should be obtained. Creating new corruption just makes News Ltd. a bunch of crooks and proves nothing.
It seems as though all of Murdoch’s properties get a turn to rotate around the ABC. Was it the ‘Sunday Times” turn last night?
I think I disagree with you a bit on this one guys. I see no issue in a sting whereby bribes are offered. No money swap actually took place, right? Just the verbal offer to do so. I’m sure they’re doing it for the headlines, nevertheless it does weaken the Japanese position.
The headline from the Lateline link is:
“Vote-buying in IWC confirmed”
If you read the Lateline transcript, including the ’sting’ bits, all you get is:
(1) Murdoch’s Sunday Times offering bribes, and
(2) some quotes suggesting that these people get money and freebies from Japan.
The point is that there is nothing to PROVE Japan buys these votes on the IWC.
Therefore, that is not just shit journalism – as you would expect from Murdoch’s stenographers – but also unethical by their own Press Council rules.
They could have proven it by getting the quote, on their secret hidden cameras, “confirming” the “vote-buying”. All they got was a bunch of guys saying they get freebies from Japan.
Look, we all know Japan buys these votes the same way the US bought countries like Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, into the “Coalition Of The Willing”.
But to get to the headline: “Vote Buying Confirmed” a real journalist would need something to actually “confirm” that THOSE votes were bought. Not just the general suggestion that these people’s votes are probably for sale.
Otherwise you would get to the point where an acceptable headline would be: “Rudd’s Subservience To Murdoch Confirmed”, just because he had a freebie with Murdoch’s New York Post Frat Boys at Players strip-club before he was elected.
It might be juicy and fun as a story, but it isn’t PROOF. Proof would be interesting, in it’s absence all we have is Murdoch’s usual standard of drivel lying about its age to be accepted for duty.
Still, sure we can agree to disagree a bit about this one.
Mm, you’re right. They overstated their achievements. All they proved is that representatives from poor tiny nations are corrupt. Who would’ve thought. Nothing to substantiate claims of Japanese vote-buying (although we all know they do like you say).
Just to keep your list of bought and paid for countries willing to play the stooge as complete as possible, just what do you think our representatives may have offered these countries to vote with us; better still, what do you think the Texan Tosspot might have promised or given Tiny Johnny Small The Turd Long Boy for him to take Australia into the worst example of overt American imperialism since the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour. You will recall that led inexorably to the American annexation of The Philipines. But of course American has never had any imperial ambitions, has it?
Why is it that we so often don’t see ourselves cast in these roles we so readily ascribe to others. If you dig just below the surface of the moral high ground you will almost invariably find the corrupt bones of those that died claiming a right to be there.