A special licence to investigate

The Media Watch program chastised the ABC and Uechtritz: “The story was followed up by some parts of the media, but not by the ABC. It should have been.” (“Death in Bagdad”, April 14, 2003).

The irony of all this is Mr Uechtritz complained to The Age newspaper on June 30, 2003 about freedom of speech after coming under attack from the then Communications Minister, Senator Richard Alston, for alleged biased reporting of the Iraq War by the ABC.

“It is the duty of independent journalists in a robust democracy to question everything,” Mr Uechtritz wrote. “The senator seems to think the media's duty in time of war is to fall meekly into line with the government of the day.”

But it appears this does not apply to non-ABC journalists scrutinising Paul Moran!

Another example of SFTSS is the bizarre legal case involving a reporter with the London Times newspaper, Patrick Foster, taking action to find out the name of an anonymous blogger NightJack, who turned out to be a Lancashire policeman, Richard Horton.

Legal Eagle who contributes to the blog Skeptic Lawyer (run by Helen Dale of Helen Demidenko infamy) wrote:

I can’t help finding the action of The Times rather petty and malicious. For some reason, some journalists seem to despise blogging and bloggers …

There’s a suspicion in my mind that this journalist thought to himself, Let’s bring down a blogger who is writing something that is interesting and exciting. Jean Seaton, the director of the Orwell Prize, said:

“… But, surely what matters is the accuracy and insight of the information. No one has disputed what this blog said: it was not illegal, it was not malicious. Indeed, in a world where local reporting is withering away as the economic model for supporting it disappears, we know less and less about our non-metropolitan selves and this lack of attention will surely lead to corruption. So this blog was a very good example of reporting bubbling up from a new place.”

Further confirmation of The Times story can be found here.
 
What is puzzling is The Times’ attack. The paper has made an intelligent use of blogs, and has been good at fighting the use of the courts to close down expression. NightJack was a source and a reporter. They would not (I hope) reveal their sources in court. Even odder is their main accusation against him: that the blog revealed material about identifiable court cases. The blog did not do this - cases were disguised. However, once The Times had published Horton’s name then, of course, it is easy to find the cases he was involved with. The Times has shut down a voice.

When Herald Sun newspaper reporters Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey were fined $7,000 for contempt by the Victorian Country Court over the publication of leaked documents, there was an almighty uproar about freedom of the press.

Once again the question is, whose freedom is it to scrutinise?

Rather than whingeing about the Defence Department not talking about the heroic exploits of the SASR, Hyland should examine two options open to him. First cultivate SASR soldiers as contacts or better still jump on a plane and travel to the frontlines of Afghanistan without a military escort. Respected Australian war reporter John Martinkus has been doing it for years in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps Hyland should be taking tips from him. Ah, better not suggest that it might be seen as a “curious crusade”.