Alan Kohler, Stephen Mayne and Tom Elliott talk about goo...
In Intelligence Squared's first debate of 2012, six exper...
Tanner and Megalogenis explore politics and the media, va...
This year has seen unprecedented scrutiny of Rupert Murdoch’s British interests. There’s even been talk of ‘the end of imperium’. Some of that has spilled over as far as our shores – where it all began for the Murdochs. In Australia, News Limited market dominance is impressive: by its own admission, News Limited controls 70 per cent of Australia’s newspaper readership market. The empire’s flagship publication is The Australian, our only national masthead and – though a perennial loss-maker – a key tool in News Limited’s arsenal of influence.
In ‘Bad News’, Robert Manne, one of Australia’s leading essayists, investigates how The Australian shapes debate in this country.
Throughout the year, the Wheeler Centre holds events to coincide with the publication of each Quarterly Essay. Given the subject matter of Robert Manne’s latest essay, we felt that it was appropriate to offer The Australian right of reply, and to hold the event as a debate rather than a straight interview with the essayist. We were thrilled when Paul Kelly agreed to be part of the event, and, in Crikey editor Sophie Black, the event had a moderator who was agreed upon by both sides. The event booked out, making Paul Kelly’s decision to pull out of the debate (and The Australian’s decision not to send anyone else to participate in his absence) at such a late stage regrettable. In the end, an act of ventriloquism seemed to be called for.
In place of its author, Paul Kelly’s response to Manne – ‘Robert Manne throws truth overboard’, published by The Australian on 14 September, 2011 – is read by actor Max Gillies. The version read by Gillies was edited for time: no meaning or context was altered, but the section of the article discussing the Larissa Behrendt affair was removed. Read the full script of Kelly’s article here.
Tip: In your comment, you can link to a particular point in the video like this: 0m30s for the 30th second, or 4m18s for 4 minutes and 18 seconds in.
Tweet
thank god for Crikey as Manne said in this forum.
I wonder who Janet Albrechtsen would have had in her absence?
(insert smirk)
pp et al
23 September at 02:18PM
Nick Leys wrote a review of this 'debate' in The Australian (September 21, 201). Among Leys' criticisms is the claim:
'There was no mention of Manne's several hours of interview with Kelly and The Australian's editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell and the fact not a word made it into print.'
I saw at least two references to the interview, one specifically on what went into print. It's interesting that to me Sophie Black occasionally smiled but for Leys, she "smirked her way through the role".
Angus
27 September at 08:51AM
Very biased and frankly, embarrassingly skewed review in The Australian as mentioned above. There were clearly a lot more than a hundred people. What's the point of chickening out of - then denigrating and misreporting - a debate that ultimately offered you the opportunity to defend yourself through a discussion? To resort to this petty slanging is so idiotic that it's put me off the paper completely.
I mean, aren't they kind of proving Manne's point - that they're willing to distort and misreport facts in service of their editorial agenda? Their photographer took a photo of the crowd. They clearly knew there were more than a hundred people there. This recording is free for all to download, and for anyone to see that the interview with Kelly and Mitchell was mentioned.
It's times like this that I understand Assange's frustrations with the media. Even when the facts are clear for all to see, the idiots at the top continue to get away with their spastic tomfoolery. And all because people believe what they want to believe.
Jono
27 September at 07:13PM