I recall the comment by Marian Dalton on 9th December, both in The DRUM and Online Opinion and among my comments was the following, "The point I think that the world is making. Marian, including Judges in case you are not aware, is that he has been charged, no bail, he is being called a terrorist by the extremist US politicians and finally, that he didn't actually steal the documents".

That article, by the way attracted 60 + comments which must be something of a record for Online Opinion.....

But back to the ABC. There is something going to in that organisation that is somewhat disquieting which may add to your concerns, not just in relation to the many examples of flippancy bordering on rudeness, disrespect and unprofessionalism being displayed in these panel episodes, but overall. There seems to be a level of arrogance, almost disdain which I have never noticed before and I am a exclusive ABC viewer.

We see a public organisation now with radio channels to burn and four TV networks, four. Why? How many repeat programs can you get away with, low quality cooking programs which cost them nothing, as well as fourth rate no-value British failures, always able to get a run on 'My ABC'. They are stretched and it shows!
It is primarily a management decision, or so it seems. to become a commercial broadcaster, lots of glitz, pathetic image advertisements, repeat programs, ad nauseum. They seem to have developed bias and poor quality journalism and the examples you have given are correct. They appear to be acting as though they were the reason that people had tuned in, they were the entertainment, the news item or discussion points being there just for their own amusement.

The greatest number of people that watch the ABC do so because of what it used to be and do not like what they see any more. The examples you gave of the denigration of Julian Assange on the 8th were an absolute disgrace.

Thank you for reminding us all of the unprofessionalism of Ms Crabb and Co.

You implied that, in my article, I deliberately conflated hypothetical and reality - further, that I might well be underestimating my readers by assuming they could not see that.

Here's the quote: 'But wait a minute - whatever people think of this specific law, look at the hypothetical situation being described. One partner has withdrawn consent for whatever reason. Most rape laws in the Western world would agree that at this point, the sex is no longer consensual.

Sounds like sexual assault in my book. With the added risk of a sexually-transmitted infection like chlamydia or HIV.'

I posited a hypothetical situation - the commission of a sexual assault in which one person might be exposed to an STI because the other did not wear a condom, and explained why that was an additional risk. This was to answer those who sought to trivialise such a situation.

Nothing about Assange's specific situation there. No implication that I suggested he had infected either of the complainants. You did that.

I believe Assange deserves a fair trial. I also believe his complainants deserve fair dealing by the media. Finally, I believe Wikileaks should not be conflated with this situation - by anyone.

Jennifer, interesting article. It raises some potentially devastating possibilities, not just for the ABC, but for the MSM, the commentariat, academia and politicians.

All the forms of “shoot the messenger” you have described are widely used by all of the above in relation to many topics globally.

Wikileaks has brought into focus the evidence that much of our media no longer offers journalism, just news bites and opinion. The ABC has been criticized from its own management of “group think”, no doubt that other media outlets embrace similar cultures.

I disagree with Bruce Haig’s impression that the ABC has any agenda other than to give the government what it wants. This seems to be an excuse for any perceived lack of independence or skeptical journalism.

If I were one such journalist I would be terrified at the prospect of Wikileaks demonstrating to the public that I had failed to critically question significant issues, formed a biased or prejudicial opinion and because of this, had consistently presented a one sided perspective.

If I were to think of the biggest, potentially most damaging, to more people world wide, covering the broadest spectrum of respected and influential people, it would be one of the topics referred to by Bruce Haigh, climate change.

Just imagine that (if) some of the diplomatic exchanges released by Wikileaks cover climate change and are contrary perspectives to the orthodoxy not shared by the media with the public?

There are now thousands of news items on this topic that are not getting into MSM or Public Broadcasters, even when they do we see all the classic “shoot the messenger” tactics you identified. What wonderful irony?

Perhaps Annabel Crabb could start preparing for the 13th Day of Christmas?

On the 13th day of Christmas, Wikileaks gave to me; Twelve won’t sign the treaty, the CRU is leaking, the warming data’s tweaking, Phil Jones’ data’s missing, Tree ring proxies listing, hockey sticks are straightening, feedback loops a loser, Sunspots looking hotter, Pollies looking paler, Yanks take legal action, the EAU is closing and the whole thing is diplo-mac-y

Ms Dalton

I find your defense disingenuous.

In the middle of an article entirely about Julian Assange, you decide to take the opportunity to educate your readers on the dangers of unprotected sex, using as a "hypothetical" example the exact set of circumstances as those allegedly engaged in by Assange himself.

The quote you give as example is of course selected. The section from which you isolate it discussed both a "hypothetical" situation, and goes on to discuss the four other "charges" against Assange, as follows:

**Sounds like sexual assault in my book. With the added risk of a sexually-transmitted infection like chlamydia or HIV.

And we’re not just talking about this law, either. There are four charges, and the full details are not known. There’s a lot of speculation and embroidery going on, based on an article published in the Daily Mail and some comments published by one of the alleged victims in the past. British media now report that the charges include forcing one woman’s legs apart to have sex with her, and taking advantage of the other’s sleeping state to have sex without her consent. It’s the “condom law” that gets the attention, though, and so it’s easy for people to dismiss the whole idea as ridiculous.**

You have certainly added to the speculation and embroidery by introducing the possibility of std infections. Even **hypothetically.**

I would suggest as well, that if you are specifically describing the sexual allegations, you ought to do better than offer your readers the **British media** as a primary source.

I will also take this opportunity to point out that there are no charges against Assange at this stage. There are allegations. There is a great deal of difference, as a journalist should take the trouble to find out, especially a journalist who claims to be calling for fairness and justice. You are being neither fair nor just in perpetuating the falsehood that Assange has been "charged."
Jennifer Wilson.

Yes a good article Jennifer and nothing much left to add.

The Assange-media relationship is becoming a parody of itself without much serious discussion about the implications for governance and accountability. Once again the drama of the story overides the content.

It is interesting that part of this demonisation process involves comparing Assange supporters as 'disciples' - the latter being utilised as a tool to diminish the value of the document release. It is done with any controversial topic from climate change, free trade, evolution vs Christianity and now disclosure and freedom of information.

The tactics used to diminish Assange and Wikileaks is very similar to that of whistleblowers. The shoot the messenger approach is not altogehter unsurprising - Wilkie and Kessing both experienced negative pronouncements on their character and emotional/mental wellbeing.

The document release concerning the banking sector is long overdue - please hurry Wikileaks and get it out there.

Wilson contends that Assange is not an anarchist.

Assange quoting Gustav Landauer “The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another….We are the state, and we shall continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men."A writer he often quotes.

Wilson says he is a whistleblower, yet offesr no refutation to the claim Assange has an active and ongoing political agenda. In fact, Assange seeks to fundamentally weaken the US and its allies by reducing open information flow and increasing distrust. He is in the business of regime change. Whistleblowers, by their very nature are internal to the organisation they are outing. Not a description that covers Assange.

In his own words “To radically shift regime behaviour we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.

Wilson denies megalomania, yet I wonder how she explains the model pose photographs of himself which he has so conspicuously planted. And how do you explain his desertion of Private Manning, who has received a mere 20,000 dollars for a legal defence from the millions donated to Assange and wikileaks.

Wilson claims to be upset that the mainstream media is dismissing wikileaks newest round of leaks as unremarkable, Yet neglects to point to even a single leak which substantially disproves this description.

This is because the vast majority of cables are NOT particularly edifying. There are no great conspiracies uncovered, or lies exposed. There is no gulf of Tonkin comparison, no matter how often the pentagon papers are mentioned in order to legitimize by association, Assange’s behaviour.

Assange seeks to bleed the US with a thousand cuts. Not for the purposes of greater truth, but in pursuit of "social justice". A clearly political goal.