Bounty on the Head? Hey Jason, it's not getting to you a bit is it mate, all the Minister for Justice gun-slinging stuff?
More of Shazza's Postcard from Christmas Island.

Jon Faine is not happy with the ABC's finding that his interview with me was sub-par - my turn now Jon on your opinions dressed up as fact.

Jon, this is for you.   This document contains more than 1,000 posts, each with further reference and links to documents, media reports or other evidence and opinion.

Download Timeline and reference -14-june-2013  It shows the depth of research and the basis for factual assertions made on this website about Ms Gillard and The AWU Scandal.

On 23 November, 2012 Jon Faine introduced me on his show by saying that I was responsible for the "ongoing, endlessly swirling innuendo" about Julia Gillard and her conduct at Slater and Gordon.  

He said he couldn't see what all the fuss was about, Julia Gillard had answered a lot of questions, he said he couldn't see where there was a legitimate point of public interest or ongoing police investigation.  

Jon that's because you don't do your job properly.   You haven't researched this website.   If you had, you'd have said something different, like the evidence is forged, or the interpretations of law are arguable.  But you could not have said that this website and the people who put so many hours and so much care into it are blind campaigners whose assertions have never been tested.

Here's a link to the interview.   Many of you complained to the ABC after the broadcast.

The ABC investigated the complaints and found

Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that the interviews were not conducted in keeping with ABC impartiality requirements.    The argumentative style of the interviews by Mr Faine, combined with a pattern of strongly stated personal opinions that at times oversimplified the issues at hand, was not in keeping with the ABC’s rigorous impartiality standards for current affairs content.   

ABC Radio apologise for this lapse in standards. This matter has been brought to the attention of ABC Radio management and Jon Faine has been reminded of his obligation to gather and present news and information content with due impartiality. 

Jon was not happy with the finding.   He made representations to the ABC's management and The Australian reports on that today.

This really is a very imporant issue.   Jon Faine's case is that my assertions about Gillard and her conduct had not been tested.   I've seldom encountered sharper minds than those that scrutinise every word posted on the site.   I have not simply made assertions about anyone.   The whole purpose of this site and the work you and I have done on it is to find the evidence, present it, argue it and try to work out what it means.   It's not a rumour, gossip or forum for fiction in relation to The AWU Scandal and Jon's statements are terribly offensive not only to me - but to you too.

Faine's disservice here is not based on fact or a considered analysis of this website.   It's based on Jon's opinion, presented as fact by him.   He said that my statements about Gillard and The AWU Scandal are "swirling innuendo, untested, it's simply a campaign to undermine Ms Gillard using claims that have never been put to the test".   Faine says this of me, "We are scrutinising claims made about the honesty and integrity and moral compass of the nation's leader. Her ethics were under scrutiny. Her critics were unconstrained in the wildest claims made. It absolutely was time for someone -- anyone -- to tackle Smith (and Baker to a lesser degree) and see if he could sustain his claims under pressure and whether or not they had any foundation in fact."

The bloke mustn't read.  You the readers tackle me every day - it's all laid out here in more than 100,000 comments, 3,000 individual posts, too many to count individual documents, and perhaps most tellingly of all this spreadsheet from one of our readers with every post and its supporting documentation listed.

 Download Timeline and reference -14-june-2013

Here's Jon Faine quoted in today's report from The Australian.

Broadcaster Faine strikes back at ABC ruling

 

HIGH-PROFILE ABC Radio host Jon Faine says the public broadcaster made a "fundamentally flawed" decision when it ruled against him following a complaint about a heated on-air interview with former 2UE host Michael Smith.

The interview concerned allegations about former prime minister Julia Gillard and the infamous AWU slush fund controversy.

In a written submission obtained by The Australian, Faine argues ABC management misunderstood his interview with Smith, who he says campaigned to undermine Ms Gillard over the matter with claims that had "never been put to the test". In the interview, broadcast on November 23 last year, Faine argued with Smith -- a central protagonist of the slush fund matter that dogged Ms Gillard's time in office -- and Mark Baker, The Age editor-at-large, who also reported on the story.

The interview was characterised by Faine's hectoring of Smith and his assertion that he "give it his best shot".

But Faine says the ABC failed to understand his role properly as a broadcaster, and that the determination that he breached the ABC's editorial requirement for impartiality was a wrong conclusion.

The final decision, he says, "ought not stand".

The ruling, made public in late January, created tension between ABC management and senior editorial staff because the interview was not only seen as acceptable by his colleagues but also because Faine was given no opportunity to defend himself before the ruling was made by the head of audience and consumer affairs Mark Maley.

Faine vowed to fight the ruling, which saw the ABC apologise for "a lapse in standards" and the broadcaster "reminded of his obligation to gather and present news and information content with due impartiality".

At the time of the decision Faine -- the highest-rating radio broadcaster in Victoria -- was backed by many of his colleagues, including 7.30 political editor Chris Uhlmann, who described the decision as "absurd".

The Australian has been leaked Faine's subsequent submission to management, following a denied attempt to access it through a Freedom of Information application. In the document, Faine argues that Maley is wrong to conclude he breached editorial guidelines to "gather and present news and information with due impartiality" on the basis that in the interview he was "at no time 'gathering' or 'presenting' either 'news' or 'information'."

Instead, he argues the situation was not typical and that he was testing "two other journalists' opinions, assertions and claims and seeing if they have any substance".

"I am doing so in extremis," he says. "It is not a typical situation, and it requires anything but the normal techniques used in broadcasting.

"Yes, it is aggressive in its style, but my submission is it is entirely warranted in the context in which it happens."

Faine argues both Smith and Baker had not had their claims about Ms Gillard's involvement in the matter substantially tested and that Smith in particular had waged a "deliberate and concerted campaign" against Ms Gillard while arguing that the ABC was ignoring the story and refusing to interview him over the allegations.

Faine also says the "Murdoch newspapers" were reporting that the ABC "was wilfully blind and ignoring the biggest story in Australian politics".

"We are not discussing ordinary current affairs coverage here," Faine says.

"We are scrutinising claims made about the honesty and integrity and moral compass of the nation's leader. Her ethics were under scrutiny. Her critics were unconstrained in the wildest claims made. It absolutely was time for someone -- anyone -- to tackle Smith (and Baker to a lesser degree) and see if he could sustain his claims under pressure and whether or not they had any foundation in fact."

He concludes his submission with the assertion that "the complaints ought to be dismissed".

An ABC spokesman said: "Due process was followed and democracy remains well served."

I wasn't aware of the extent of Faine's false assertions until today.  Now it's right across the country in The Australian - a view that my "claims" about Ms Gillard were not tested etc.  I'd love you opinions on what you reckon I should do about that.

Since the interview with Faine, much more has come to light on Gillard's conduct.

Terry O'Connor QC, former WA Corruption Commissioner has delivered a QC's opinion that there was a prima facie case to charge Gillard with breaching Section 170 of the WA Criminal Code in relation to the misleading claims in the AWU WRA Inc application to incorporate.

Nick Styant Browne has unredacted and released more of the Gillard departure interview, including her acknowledgement of writing to the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner to vouch for Wilson's slush fund.

Ben Fordham of 2GB interviewed Ms Gillard and police have sough copies of that interview and a sworn statement from Fordham, telling the broadcaster that 3 suspects were of interest to police, Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard.

The Legal Services Board in Victoria has accepted a report of an irregularity in the Slater and Gordon Trust Account Ledger in respect of a matter where the partner Julia Gillard acted directly for Ralph Blewitt, the purchase of 1/85 Kerr Street Fitzroy using money from the slush fund Ms Gillard set up.

Victoria police have seized boxes of documents from Ms Gillard's former law office at Slater and Gordon seeking documents that relate to The AWU Scandal.

Faine make the false and damaging broadbrush statement about me that is was running a campaign to undermine Ms Gillard using assertions that had never been put to the test.   Faine then appointed himself the truth tester and he would hear and determine the truth or otherwise of it all in 15 minutes on his radio show.

Jon, I challenge you now to read the 900 posts in this spreadsheet and see if you still feel that way.

 Download Timeline and reference -14-june-2013

 

Comments