Nicely done.
We need more of this to show just how bad integrity declined during the Howard government. Hopefully enough facts will make the outright lies spewed by this government clear enough even for the Liberal fans to take notice.
Howard is already a war criminal for letting the lies of the US take us to war and be complicit in illegal profiteering violence. Trying to take credit for the independence movement when he was really trying to help crush it is typical of the morality he practised.
International diplomacy and politics is really, really hard! This is why a moral compass is needed. Keating seemed at times arrogant and idealistic...this is far superior to the direction-less evil that Howard practised.
Does it seem to you that I am over-reacting? It is because I have seen first hand the impact of the "Conservative" philosophy on the economy and the press. It is an anti-philosophy: anyone who wants a favour or profit can join. No ideals required. This is why the Neo-Conservatives include coalitions of such unlikely bedfellows.
Liberalism, the idea that individuals should be protected from false authority is a big threat to traditional power structures such as churches, and also to capitalist models that would prefer slaves to free workers. Corrupting laws to increase profits is also a grand Conservative theme. Finally, calling themselves the opposite of what they are: using language to confuse is par for the course. (the Liberals used to stand for Liberal policy...but this is just history now.)

Yes indeed, Ozandy.Now,instead of the Rodent corruption we have the Rudd corruption which is much the same.

Whichever way we vote we get the same old oligarchy.

Regretably the only solution is a crash and burn.

Adam Henry writes: "Why then does it seem that Western journalists and many intellectuals cannot apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others? This would seem to be a most basic and rudimentary standard to adopt should intellectual integrity and factual integrity be taken seriously in the West."

I think the answers to Adam's question are three: first, laziness; second, having a belief that we (I am an academic) will not be caught out; and third, the (normal - this piece from Henry is a delightful exception!) lack of willingness to challenge and debate in Australian society and especially in academia. Academia ought to flourish on such debate but instead is caught up in excessive managerialism with a focus on publications and publications and publications and not on scholarship and learning and inquiry. Too often in my own experience is frowns on debate add the exercise of academic freedom.

This is such an important piece and such an important issue. The case study is just so worrying but in many ways (and sadly) not desperately surprisng.

The extent to which so-called investigative journalism was practiced in the past in Australia was much greater than now in this digital age when investigations are so much easier.

In Adam's piece there is a recognition that journalists and academics can challenge and question using the tools of the digital age. Citizens do not have to accept what we are fed in the mainstream media. We can question and query. And maybe journalists will raise their game knowing that their stories can be subject to such detailed investigation.


Gavin Mooney