First Murdoch, now Fairfax

In a bizarre defence, Mark Baker wrote to Crikey after their report, "My story quoted former lawyer and activist Harry Nowicki accusing Slaters of stalling on requests to hand over details of an unofficial file Gillard kept in her office detailing her slush fund legal work."

So Fairfax thinks it's okay to run misleading stories if the unverified allegations are from a third party?

The Press Council says this is not okay.

Baker's self-justification continues: "We made a considered decision not to seek a response from Slaters … because we had … genuine concerns that if we flagged details of our reporting we risked a court injunction to stop publication."

Now, why would the law firm seek an injunction? And why in a country which values freedom of speech would one possibly be granted? The only answer is if the stories were not true.

Does this amount to an acknowledgment that The Age knew in advance that its claims were invalid?

Appears so.

Two other aspects of Baker's vendetta deserve condemnation, although neither was the subject of Press Council judgment this time.

His articles assert repeatedly that Gillard told Slater & Gordon partners in 1995 that an association she helped union officials incorporate – the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association – was a "slush fund" set up to bankroll union electioneering.

Gillard said no such thing.

An incorporated association is legally constituted by the Corporate Affairs Commission after certain requirements are met.

A fund is an account opened by a bank or other institution on application by eligible account holders. There was at least one account opened by the association after it had been incorporated.

What Gillard referred to in her discussions with colleagues as a "slush fund" was clearly a bank account, not the association. They are quite separate entities.