Dr Matthews is right, but the problem goes beyond the media more closely scrutinizing the often racist and xenophobic claims of memebers of obscure religious sects.
On almost any day of the week the daily newspapers and tv media repeat what is essentially propaganda reinforcing a particular line or lines of argument.
An instructive exercise is to go to the website of Project Censored, a long running project out of the University of California. Each year they publish the 25 top censored stories. Their focus is the US but ceteris paribus it applies with equal force to Australia.
The media not only blindly accept much that is questionable as Dr Matthews argues, but also refuses to even touch a wide range of topics whose media acceptance is at the basis of many current problems.

There are a variety of reasons "the media" (the mainstream pop/tabloid media) feel ok about vilification - the propaganda they publish ritually, is for a core mandate of social control. But whose values are they reflecting and who decides on the editorial bias and culture?
Diversity in media recruitment practices is non-existent - police & security agencies have a similar problem, they are failing to adapt with a changing population. The upper executive, usually quite senior, can be steeped in a bias that is from an era of Australian political and social history where racial bias and intolerance were things the government promoted and encouraged - for which they have now apologized for...in part. The media were a central arm for the dissemination of racial intolerance during the compliant 50s - they are struggling to change. They discourage independent copy from freelancers, with little or no freelance budget and this worsens the lack of independence and diversity of their content presenting an overwhelming front of propaganda and advertising - quite awful and not worth buying, except for garden mulch.

Another possibility is that there is a lack of resources and time afforded to the staff to vet copy and ensure that stories are correct. They ritually run departmental media releases as copy to sell their advertising and the more sensational the more the pop mainstream media enjoy that - if it causes web traffic their revenue goes up, responsible or not. This comprises censorship - asking staff to do a job and then not giving them enough time to do it competently.

Worse still, is the absolute lack of racial and religious diversity among court/crime reporters. However, management realize these issues exist and do not seek to counter them, amid the liquid lunches and the sales and marketing meetings. The end result if there is too little revenue, is that the staff lose their jobs - and considering that they consistently fail to undertake them in a competent and responsible manner according to the Code of Ethics they are obliged to comply with, they get way too much pay.

In the absence of fairness, and a say, all the public can do is vote with their consumerism. Boycott those publications - there'd be a lot of Muslims, and other ethnically diverse groups who would be buying and subscribe to those tabloid publications. Money is the only thing the more influential execs value. Besides, there is a huge amount of media available to choose from now and some of it is excellent.

is the husband who have been charged a muslim? Seems to me until the facts come out this article is no better than the original report. Their is ample evidence that muslim men will not accept any family members (especially woman) converting to the truth. Many throughout the world have lost their lives. An uncovenient truth for the author.

Once again runner brings the crazy.
Meanwhile back on Earth, While I welcome the authors efforts, I fear he is doomed to failure. The media in Australian is all about selling advertising space and will pumb any hole inorder to hit the KPI's set by the Exec's.

Unfortunately this article is inself misleading; the Islamic attitude towards apostasy is well known as is this religion's intolerance of secular societies and aggressive intentions about the introduction of Sharia law.

Given these manifest and undeniable aspects of Islam the Age headline was quite reasonable within the usual framework of hyperbole the MSM operates in.

Actually I thought this article was about scepticism of that great scam AGW; that might be a more apprpriate vehicle for the author to approach defects in the MSM; otherwise he should keep his censorious propensities to himself.

The story was not true. Why do the crazies claim it might be when it is not true?

And the husband is also a christian but why in Australia would extremists care?

Another AGE blooper was the screaming headline on Sunday 'AUSTRALIA SOFT TOUCH FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS', a story taken by Tom Hyland from a story by Jon Boone for the Guardian which failed to mention a few trifles like.

1. only 30,400 of the 4.4 million Afghan refugees reached the west last year and only 1350 got here. To read the Hyland and Boone articles though we didn't learn those facts, we had to resort to Foxnews - we also didn't learn from Boone or Hyland that they are leaving because they are terrified of us leaving them to the mercy of the Taliban and increasing violence.

Tom Hyland is one of the best journos in this country so I was shocked to read his one sided, misleading rot.

How does that song go?

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon: The Boxer)

To the runners of this world, all they need to see is "she has been abducted by Muslim hardliners because of her attempts to convert Muslims to Christianity"

This causes him to scribble:

>>is the husband who have been charged a muslim?... Their is ample evidence that muslim men will not accept any family members (especially woman) converting to the truth. Many throughout the world have lost their lives<<

Disregarding the rest.

Otherwise, he would have seen "Mrs Ahmadi converted to Christianity five years ago and her husband, Nathan, a year later"

I'm equally guilty, at the other end of that spectrum.

As soon as I had seen the name "Pastor Danny Nalliah, of Catch the Fire Ministries", I would have concluded "huh, just another whackamozzie beat-up", and turned the page.

Is it the journalist's responsibility to do the policework, and uncover the body in the back yard before they go to press with the story?

I don't think so.

Given that they had given equal prominence to the two contrasting red flags in the same article - "muslim convert to christianity" and "Pastor Danny Nalliah, of Catch the Fire Ministries", I think they reported fairly.

Readers will inevitably apply their own personal prejudices to the material presented, and draw their own conclusions. Runner will assume it is a hate crime by a Muslim against a Christian, others will assume that the good Pastor is stirring the religious-hate pot again.

But this is a hot topic right now. The New York Times public editor recently asked the question of his readers, should reporters "challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/

It isn't a simple question. The reaction - "yes, you moron, The Times should check facts and print the truth" - even caused him to write an update later:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/update-to-my-previous-post-on-truth-vigilantes/

Both make interesting reading.

Wouldn't it be good if our press exhibited the same level of self-examination here in Australia...

So, I notice that the last few comments here try pointing to Islam as an example of extreme fundamentalism, but really any fundamentalist religion will do, and even those that are middle of the road are still pretty extreme. That opens the mud-flinging opportunities up a bit for the web trolls doesn't it?

Some global pentacostal churches in Australia teach their congregations it's sinful to question or endeavour to apply reason to their church teachings. It's a sin to think - go figure.

It's extremist to generalize about Muslims or any other religion for that matter - these last few commenters obviously don't know too many or don't notice those that they deal with on a daily basis - they're not extreme enough, I suppose.

"It's extremist to generalize about Muslims or any other religion for that matter - these last few commenters obviously don't know too many or don't notice those that they deal with on a daily basis - they're not extreme enough, I suppose"

What gibberish; because other cults are as bad as Islam we should ignore Islam? Is that your 'point'?

Well, other religions are NOT as bad as Islam; have a little wander around the world's trouble spots and pick the other religions involved; of course, I hear you say, it's all the West's fault with Islam because we occasionally confront the poor, misunderstood darlings.

I do wish all these bleeding heart do gooders would just go jump of the Sydney harbour bridge, over the hard stuff, not the water.

They obviously have a death wish for themselves, but they want to include the rest of us, & our society in the event with them, for some reason.

Well I for one won't be in it, & I will fight them tooth & nail, to prevent them giving away our kids birthright, & killing our society with their stupidity.

They see themselves with the moral high ground, when it is only the height of stupidity that they are attaining.

Excellent article. Unfortunately reportage that reinforces prejudice and false stereotypes is quite common in Australia as shown by recent Press Council rulings and the judgment in the Andrew Bolt matter.
This impoverishes the nation quite significantly.
Let's hope the current national inquiry comes up with recommendations which bring about reform.
And let's continue to draw attention to failings whenever they occur, as this article has done admirably.

"This impoverishes the nation quite significantly."

What impoverises this country is condescending and blinkered attitudes like yours.

The judgement against Bolt was terrible for multiple reasons; the mantra was that the applicants to that woeful bit of legislation, The Racial Discrimination Act, would have succeeded in defamation but did not pursue that path because they were not interested in money.

This is patently wrong; Bromberg J's decision rested entirely on the criteria that offence under the RDA was based on the subjective feelings of the applicant; in defamation the criteria is the community standard, the antithesis of subjectivity. It is also the case that defamation matters still retain the right to a jury, despite attempts by the usual left to muzzle that last bit of community standard [see Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (2011) NSWCA 246 at [15]].

I find it absurd to think a reasonably selected jury would have convicted Bolt on the facts of his case.

And how is describing Islam as an aggressive, intolerant religion a stereotype?

Hi Cohenite,
Did you actually read the Bolt judgment?
It is quite long, but well worth the effort.

Hi Alan Austin.
It is manifestly obvious that Cohenite has not read the Bolt judgment or if he did he did not understand it. But then, why let facts get in the way of one's prejudices.

"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective assessment of the likely reaction of those people. I have concluded that the assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people. General community standards are relevant but only to an extent."

Paragraph 15:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html

Impress me with your legal acumen and explain how that is not a subjective, non-community standard.

Dear oh dear the extreme rightwingers and the extreme religous fundamentalist, seem to have forgotten that Australia went into WW2 to destroy this extreme control and totaliterianism ideology.
EG: Runner your Jesus and his Mother or Dad would not be happy with you, showing hatred towards their children!!

The judge also said:
"The reasons for that conclusion [that offensive conduct occurred] have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.
"In coming to that view, I have taken into account the possible degree of harm that I regard the conduct involved may have caused. Beyond the hurt and insult involved, I have also found that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity.
"I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some people susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views and that, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened."
The judge found 20 errors of fact. In just two articles.
“Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance,” he observed.

Kipp and others write

'EG: Runner your Jesus and his Mother or Dad would not be happy with you, showing hatred towards their children!!

so telling the truth about muslim converts is hate. Yeah!

Point 1 Zac. The SMH is a pro multicultural rag which does not try to harm minorities.

Point 2. It is a fact that Muslims believe that killing a Muslim who converts to another religion is entirely justified.

Point 3. There are so many young Muslim females apparently committing suicide in Britain, that Scotland Yard is beginning to smell a rat. The police have stated publically that some of these "suicides" are honour killings by male family memebers who are outraged that a young female Muslim would want to live like a typical westerner.

point 4. Honour killings of females in Muslim countries is common and the perpetrators are unlikely to be prosecuted. Honour killings are also known to have occured with some frequency in western countries, one happened right here in my own home town of Parramatta.

To summarise, zac, the SMH printed a story based upon what was said by the apparently grieving husband of a missing woman, and that story was credible. If Muslims think that is unjust, they can stop believing that the murder of Muslim apostates is justified, stop committing these crimes, and their Imams and Mullahs must publically denounce any Muslim who commits one of these murders.

But they are not going to do that, are they Zac? And you and I know why. To think in a liberal way and to believe that females and apostates have rights is against the teachings of their non existent God.

Alan Austin, your understanding of the significance of the Bolt judgement is deficient, otherwise you would realise the passage you have quoted confirms my point about the subjectivity of the active criteria of the RDA; which is, an aggrieved party may seek redress by reference to itself.

This is anathema to equality before the law and the essential quality of the primacy of the reasonable community standard.

But not only do you miss this fundamental point you are also unaware that the Judge relies on the criteria of what is likely to influence those who are susceptible to the message of racism allegedly in the offending article. This is the essence of all censorship; namely that something should be prohibited because it is likely to influence, to community detriment, members of that community.

This is the weakest link argument and the irony is that while the Judge in the Bolt case abrogates community standards to initially determine an offence under the act he relies on the inverse of that community standard to bolster the weakness of the primary criteria of a non-community standard.

In short the judgement is a mess.

As for the factual errors, Bolt deals with that here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_reaction3/

A reasonable appraisal of this decision and its impact on society is by James Allan, a professor of law at the University of Queensland.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/andrew-bolt-decision-justifies-repeal-of-a-bad-statute/story-e6frg97x-1226152277397

Hi Cohenite,

We seem to be disagreeing about the reasons the judge found against Andrew Bolt. The link you provide claims “For simply expressing his opinion about the weird fluidity of modern-day identity politics, Bolt was found guilty of racial discrimination.”

But this is not true, is it? Bromberg discusses the issue of expression of opinion at great length, which is extremely interesting. But the problems he found with the two articles was not the offensive opinions therein, but the multiplicity of errors of fact, distortions of the truth and serious omissions.

In his discussion of Section 18D Bromberg specifically notes that exemption from action is available for “a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest”. He makes it pretty clear that the action would not have succeeded had the articles been reasonably factually accurate.

I believe we should be free to express whatever opinion we hold, however racist or sexist or or bigotted or whatever. But we should not be free to fabricate lies, should we?

And no, the link to the Bolt blog does not “deal with” the factual errors, Cohenite. It defends just one of them. But there were more than twenty.

This is the essential problem not just with Mr Bolt, but with much of the opinion and reportage in the Murdoch media.

What about other publishers than the daily press? Do they have a similar duty of care to ensure accuracy and fairness? For example, what of traditional publishing houses that are responsible for producing the textbooks and reference works that inform our next generation of practitioners in various fields

The alleged errors of fact were always secondary to the primary reasons for the Judgement:

"The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language." [paragraph 23]

The Judgement discussion of the errors of facts is at paragraphs 380-383; they seem slight.

Basically Bolt has been pinged because he is un-PC, a smart-a..e and writes as such

No, Cohenite, the opposite is true.

Perhaps it might be helpful do word searches of the judgment for: erroneous, factual error, wrong, untruth, omission, distortion and inaccurate. You will see these are pervasive and central to the findings. They are not confined to four paragraphs at all.

“Just as an adherence to the value of truth protects reputation, so too will it serve to protect the values which s 18C seeks to foster. The protection of reputation and the protection of people from offensive behaviour based on race are both conducive to the public good: Scully at [239] (Hely J). Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.” Paragraph 390.

Alan you are confusing judgemental comments on the errors of fact as opposed to the actual errors of fact. I have given you the Judge's reasons for his decision so when you say it was the errors of fact you are contradicting him when he says otherwise.

This is a precious decision which will have no beneficial effect on the condition and general lifestyle of aborigines in Australia; if anything it will narrow public sympathies, because at the end of the day the point Bolt was making is a legitimate one; which is, are the support systems for aborigines being rorted.

Okay. Let’s see if we can resolve this. Cohenite.

“I have given you the Judge's reasons for his decision.” Do you mean paragraph 23? If so, this would seem to support the position that "errors of fact" and "distortions of the truth" played a significant part in the decision.

If Bolt had a legitimate point to make, why did his two pieces contain – according to the judgment – so many erroneous facts, factual errors, untruths, omissions, distortions and statements that were inaccurate or wrong? More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment.

"If Bolt had a legitimate point to make, why did his two pieces contain – according to the judgment – so many erroneous facts, factual errors, untruths, omissions, distortions and statements that were inaccurate or wrong? More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment."

Precisely Alan.

Thing is, media shock-jocks do that all the time.
Indeed, Andrew Bolt is well known (and well paid) to do just that, stir the pot that is.

Alan says: "More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment."

List them please Alan because I don't believe you; while you are proving me wrong I note Chris Kenny's opinion piece:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/silencing-dissent-wont-resolve-indigenous-issues/story-e6frgd0x-1226156370004

Kenny, a much more moderate commentator than Bolt says this:

"Much has been made of the findings about errors of fact. Errors are always unfortunate and sometimes egregious but in this case they are hardly the central point. Some of what Bromberg cites as factual error is more a matter of emphasis. It is a canard to suggest the case was about disputed facts: it was about apparent offence caused by Bolt's controversial and strongly worded opinion."

And here is one of those points of emphasis/factual errors as identified by the Judge:

"Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Cole was raised by her “English-Jewish” or “English” mother (1A-2; 2A-24). That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Cole’s Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Cole’s identification as an Aboriginal."

Ms Cole's grandmother is discussed here:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2011/05/bindi-cole-photo

The point here is a genuine issue: what constitutes aboriginality and more importantly what level of support should the community give to those who seek to make this distinction on their own behalf. It is an interesting thing that in Australia's early colonial history people who could have declared their aboriginality would probably have disavowed it but now they declare it; if they do that for pride in their heritage that is a good thing; if they do that for reasons of community disharmony and personal profit that is another; which was Bolt's point

Thank you, Cohenite.
We have one faction that wants us to speak no ill & hear no ill of Islam.
Another that wants us to speak no ill & hear no ill of minorities.
And another, that would outlaw any criticism of the IPCC & its line of climate change.
Unsurprisingly enough, there is a fair bit over overlapping between membership(s)of the aforementioned

It is soooo refreshing to hear from someone who can exercise a little healthy skepticism and expose their machinations--and do it so well.

Hi Cohenite. References as requested.

Re Ms Heiss: “Each of those assertions was erroneous.” Three of them. (381)
Re Ms Eatock’s wealth. “The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous.” (382)
Re Ms Eatock’s motives: “That statement is untrue.” (382)
Re Ms Cole: “The facts upon which the comment is based are not stated, referred to or notorious.” (383)
Re biology: “... was shown to be factually erroneous.” (392)
The absence of significant reference to cultural upbringing “leaves an erroneous impression”. (392)
“In part, the cultural references, where given, were erroneous.” (398)
“Dr Atkinson was raised in an Aboriginal fringe camp on the ancestral lands of his Aboriginal ancestors.” (400)
“Mr Clark was raised as Aboriginal in a well-known Aboriginal community in Victoria.: (400)
“There is other evidence which also suggests to me that Mr Bolt was not particularly interested in including reference to the Aboriginal cultural upbringing of the individuals he wrote about.” (401)
Re Ms Cole’s mother: “That statement is factually inaccurate …” (402)
Re Ms Cole’s father: “That statement is factually incorrect.” (402)
Re Ms Cole’s grandmother: “Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space.” (403)
Re Prof Behrendt: “The factual assertions … were also erroneous.” (404)
Re Wayne and Graham Atkinson in the first article: “The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.” (406)
Re Graham Atkinson in the second article: Also “grossly incorrect.” (406)
Re Ms Eatock: “That source made an incorrect assertion …” (407)
Re Ms Eatock: “Mr Bolt repeated the error as to age …” (407)
And, finally, “Mr Bolt and HWT contended that the Articles contained no material errors of fact.” (364)

That’s without searching too hard. There could be more.
Apologists for the Murdoch press like Chris Kenny may characterise the errors as “unfortunate” but “hardly the central point”.

But to Bromberg they were certainly central: “The deficiencies I have relied upon in arriving at the conclusion … are about deficiencies in truth.” (386)

And: “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.” (390)

It is interesting that at paragraphs 394-399 the Judge deals with what he considers the 2 defining issues of aboriginality: biological descent and cultural factors, that is upbringing. The Judge agrees that it is legitimate to speak about aboriginality in purely biologicaly terms but castigates Bolt for, when introducing cultural defining factors, not dealing with them in a complete fashion.

So when Bolt refers to the non-aboriginal upbringing of many of the litigants, this is an error of fact by ommission because Bolt concentrated on the non-aboriginal aspect of the upbringing and did not refer any of the aboriginal upbringing.

But is this not what many of the litigants do; that is, focus entirely on their aboriginal cultural experience and ignore completely the non-aboriginal? The irony is complete when they seek redress in non-aboriginal fashion.

The people's Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has passed laws which racially discriminate in favour of "aboriginal" people, in order to try and overcome aboriginal disadvantage. Most Australians support this racial discrimnation because they approve of its intent.

The problem is, that exactly what constitutes an "aboriginal" has never been defined. And it is reasonable that most Australians would be concerned that people who are seven-eighths white, or fifteen sixteenths white, are accessing these generous benefits meant only for "aboriginals." As such, Henry Bolt's article was fair and reasonable comment.

But Henry Bolt broke the law. Because the laws against freedom of speech in this country that were implemented by a Labor minister, are so wide ranging that any negative comment about another race, culture, ethnicity, or religion is illegal. And that is what brought Bolt undone.

That these laws are an affront to the entire concept of freedom of speech, which is one of the foundation stones or western democracy, should be obvious to all. It is thinking worthy of a totalitarian state to say that it is perfectly legal to say nice things about other races, ethicities, cultures and religious, but totally illegal to say bad things about them. In a democracy, the collective values, attitudes and behaviours of no social groups should be above examination, criticism, or fair comment.

Andrew Bolt did not appeal the Federal Court's ruling, neither did his employer.

Bolt is entitled to his opinions but he should not make stuff up.

@Cohenite. The judgment not only exposes the many false assertions but also the extensive use of mockery and derision and the newspaper’s intention to sting, to confront, to offend and to upset. In such cases, what redress is appropriate?

@LEGO, what do you mean ‘what constitutes an "aboriginal" has never been defined’? Are you aware of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' working definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - first agreed to in 1981 and widely accepted since?
Regarding the matter of freedom of speech, LEGO, have you read the judgment?

@Bonmot, precisely.

I have given you examples of where the "false assertions" are problematic; the second one in relation to the lack of full disclosure about cultural factors/upbringing by Bolt is in fact the bulk of the "false assertions' and may be regarded as just ONE example which has inherent contradictions as I have explained; namely Bolt was convicted of doing the very thing the litigants do!

These litigants sought what was essentially an equitable remedy to their complaint; one of the maxims of equitable remedies is that "One who comes into equity must come with clean hands"; how can those who do what the accused does demand that the accused be punished and not themselves?

In any event, contrary to what you say about the Judgement, there were not "many false assertions" but essentially one.

As for the "extensive use of mockery and derision and the newspaper’s intention to sting, to confront, to offend and to upset." You must be joking; that would capture every cartoonist in the country except for the ratbag Leunig. But, you are right, this was the heart of the Judgement; that upsetting a protected and precious [sic] group should be illegal.

Do you really understand how repugnant that is? Especially given the grotesque events on Australia Day?

Not sure that answers the question though, Cohenite.

Do published articles intended to offend and upset which achieve this with extensive embedded falsehoods – about 20 extracted above - require remedy? If so, what is appropriate?

And on your claim "Bolt was convicted of doing the very thing the litigants do" may I ask you again? Have you actually read the judgment through, Cohenite - or just commentary on it from Murdoch apologists?

Hello, Alan Austin, you seem to be implying that what constitutes an "aboriginal" is legally defined. OK Alan. Enlighten me.

On second thought, Alan, let me guess.

"Anyone who has the merest trace of aboriginal ancestry, and who considers themselves "aboriginal" is legally an "aboriginal", and they entitled to help themselves to all generous taxpayer funds meant to alleviate aboriginal disadvantage."

Hi again LEGO,
The legal definition has an intriguing history discussed here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01rn18.htm

But since the 1970s pretty much everyone has accepted this:

"An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives."

This three-part definition (descent, self-identification and community recognition) was adopted in the 1980s by federal and state government departments as their working definition for determining eligibility for services and benefits. It is accepted by the High Court as defining 'Aboriginal race' in s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution.

It was used by the Federal Court in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991. Then Justice Brennan confirmed it in the 1992 Mabo judgement, with slight rewording:

"Membership of the indigenous people depends on biological descent from the indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people."

"Murdoch apologists"; what an honest broker you are.

I read law cases for a living.

This is a bad one; it stretches the law.

Let me ask you; do you think if a description of an aborigine of discernible biological descent, but who had no discernible physical characteristics of aboriginality and a non-aboriginal cultural upbringing and who had received benefits based on aboriginality would be acceptible under this Judgement if that description contained no errors of fact? And as a corrollary, would such a description containing no errors of fact as defined in the Judgement, be possible?

Bolt simply asked a question which I have heard many people ask, and I think it is a legitimate question. Maybe he should not have named any specific person though and that may have been his undoing.

The findings of the court are flying in the face of public opinion on this.
A law that can shut up a perfectly legitimate question being asked by a huge percentage of Australians is just plainly politically correct nonsense.

Hi again Cohenite. For Aboriginality to be validated, all three factors must apply: descent, self-identification and recognition by the elders.

The multiple errors of fact are absolutely critical to the adverse judgment in the Bolt matter. Had there been none, or only a few accidental or incidental errors, the claim would not have succeeded. Nor indeed would the applicants have had a case to bring.

This seems pretty clear from paragraphs 8, 289, 355 to 360, 368, the whole slab from 372 to 393, 421, 425, as well as those listed yesterday.

Many commentators have expressed similar opinions to Mr Bolt’s over the years with impunity. You do have free speech in Australia, and all opinions may be freely expressed. As it should be. But no cilivilised society permits the widespread publication of multiple malicious lies.

By malicious I mean “replete with comments and a derisive tone that have little or no legitimate forensic purpose to the argument propounded”.

That’s why it is so laughable for Chris Kenny and other Murdoch apologists to claim the finding “has drastic implications for free speech”. Sheer nonsense.

Kenny may wish “it is Bolt's opinions and the way they were expressed that are at the heart of this case, not his facts”. But it just ain’t so.

So a question for you, Cohenite. Imagine the wide publication of a malicious series of articles and blogs accusing you and 17 of your close friends and family - all named - of serious fraud or dishonesty wherein most of the essential assertions were erroneous, unsupported by any factual basis, factually inaccurate, factually incorrect or grossly incorrect.

Would you agree that such publication should be permitted under freedom of speech?

@Cherful, have you read the judgment?

Cherful, you obviously haven't read the Federal Court's ruling.

The law is the law - despite what your opinion is, despite what cohenite's is, despite what you think is the 'public'.

"Would you agree that such publication should be permitted under freedom of speech?"

That is a silly question; of course not; I would sue in defamation.

Again I think you are avoiding the issue would negates your attempt of providing an example. The cohenite family do not receive government handouts simply because they are declared members of the cohenite lineage with such membership equating to a disadvantage compared to other citizens.

Put into perspective some of the litigants in the Bolt matter achieved success by merit and others through specific and positive government discrimination.

Why do some members of the litigants deserve subsidisation for the same qualities that other litigants have who did not receive the same subsidisation?

Anyway, back on the farm ... "What is the media's duty of skepticism ... comments?"

Typical modus operandi of cohenite to derail the author's article to his own hobby horses.

Anyone else want to get back on topic?

"Until quite recently the social backgrounds and characters of policemen and police reporters were virtually interchangeable...The two groups acknowledged that to a large extent their chances of fame and promotion were intertwined. It was a small closed community in which detectives and journalists made sure to look after each other's interests. For journalists the world of 'police rounds' was like a Masonic brotherhood." David Salter, 2007, p.266, The Media We Deserve

In a way, police reporting has always been a walk-up start. A reporter assigned a police round walked an endless beat of sexy, naked city stories, ones they did not have to find themselves...Police reporters are also prone to corruption. There is a need to take care to avoid the same conditioning that persuades us to see only what we want to see." Chris Masters, 2002, p143, Not for Publication.

Hi again Cohenite.

Precisely. The Cohenite family does not receive government handouts illegitimately. And neither do the complainants in the Bolt matter.

We seem to agree now that false accusations are actionable and that remedial action does not imperil freedom of speech. So I am not sure what issue you think I am avoiding.

The matter of subsidisation deserved or undeserved is for another forum. This thread is about the media and the courts.

If indeed there is rorting of Indigenous programs then the media has a responsibility to expose this. But without resort to allegations that are inaccurate, erroneous, incorrect or wrong. And without derision, mockery and gratuitous insult.

Sadly for Australia, this seems beyond the capability of most of your media.

@Bonmot, Dr Matthews is right in pointing to the failures in Australia. The same seems true, unfortunately, in the US and England. Less so here in France and other non-English speaking Western democracies.

In most cases, the failures seem to lie primarily with the Murdoch media which have led the way in abusing news reporting and commentary to further their political, social and financial interests.

I’ll do this post in 2 parts to avoid the word limit.

I don't know if we are in agreement about the alleged "errors of fact".

What I will say is this: Bolt can be a smart-arse, anyone who is in his sights is going to have their feelings hurt, and he has been a bit hazy in presenting what is a valid point.

Looking at that in the context of the facts and hurt feelings issues, which were the 2 actionable components of the litigants award we can say the following.

Bolt tried to impugn the right of the litigants to claim aboriginal status by mixing that up with their claimed right to compensation; the 2 issues are distinct; Bolt got that wrong but so did the Judgement.

The Judgement's mistake makes the errors of fact in regard to upbringing etc red herrings [and as I have shown problematic in any event]. They are irrelevant because the litigants were of equivalent aboriginality but were distinguished by their ability to achieve with and without compensation.

That is, some got to where they wanted to be on their own while others got compensation. That is the only relevant fact. And it defeats the litigants. It defeats them because racism must cover all the members of the race. If some are not affected then those who claim to be affected by racism must instead be disadvantaged by some personal attribute which is not a factor of race.

This is the point Bolt was trying to get at; namely whether personal attributes should be compensable. He made a mess of it by mixing it with the right to claim aboriginal status.

Part 2.

The 2nd issue of hurt feelings goes to the application of a community, objective standard, as opposed to a subjective standard.

This is a vexed issue. All torts rely on the community standard; a hurt feeling is not sufficient to ground an action in defamation; the community must recognise that untruths have been made and that the litigant is hurt by those untruths because they have affected his community reputation.

What was the untruth, or error of fact in the Bolt case; that some of the litigants succeeded with compensation, and some without. That cannot ground a case in defamation because the community cannot see any untruth in that.

All that is left is personal feelings. Should these be compensable? There has been a growth in areas of compensation for hurt feelings; for instance school bullying is actionable even though there are not errors of fact. For example a child may be taunted because he/she is fat; the fact that they are fat is beside the point.

Also, in the workplace people may be victimised without anything untruthful happening.

Obviously people should have their feelings protected in some instances. But the Bolt case stretches the law, as I said, because it rewards hurt feelings not only where the errors of fact are problematic but also in circumstances where the litigants were plainly not disadvantaged.

That is going too far and it is a bad Judgement for that reason.

Yes, Cohenite, Mr Bolt can be a smart+rse. But nobody cares about that. And no, a hurt feeling is not and should not be grounds for action in defamation. We agree on these.

But the judge made it clear the HWT was at fault not for hurting feelings but for the malicious fabrications throughout the two articles. The judge was specific. “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.” (390) Not mockery, derision and scorn.

He is explicit at para 425. He was “positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith” primarily because of the lack of care and diligence demonstrated by “the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth.” The derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the gratuitous asides were secondary.

So, no, Mr Bolt was not “a bit hazy in presenting a valid point”. He had no case at all without resorting to the fabrication of the more than 20 outright lies detailed above, Thursday, 26 January 2012 9:05:07 PM.

The commentariat defending Mr Bolt would like us to think the errors of fact are “red herrings” and “irrelevant”. Is this because they do not want to be confronted with the ugly fact that most Murdoch commentators engage largely in MSU activism - making sh+t up?

This has now been proven time after time. Bolt was guilty of this in the Popovic matter:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/21/1021882053251.html

He was and continues to be guilty of this on the stolen generations:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt-robert-manne-4088

He continues to be guilty of this on climate change:
http://theconversation.edu.au/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644

He is not alone, just the most widely-read. Glenn Milne and Piers Akerman are also serial offenders. Whole websites now exist to expose the MSU efforts of Murdoch employees on climate:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/

The wilfully mendacious campaign on the broadband network was exposed emphatically here: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj1515-benaud-daily-telegraph-dec-2011/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1

There are plenty of other recent examples for which links are available.

The bizarre thing to observe for this distance (Europe) is that so few Australians see this pattern of MSU activism as much of a problem. Is this now an accepted Australian community standard?

Alan

Precisely and sadly, precisely.

I think you have jumped the shark Alan; Murdoch bashing on the basis of "making sh+t up" about AGW; it is impossible to make stuff up about a fanciful notion which is itself made up.

You have either not understood my point or are wilfully ignoring it; the point again is that some of the litigants against Bolt had done well on their own initiative while others had sought and received compensation.

The point is, if all the litigants had equivalent aboriginality, why should some receive compensation?

This point defeats any claim that Bolt was being racist. To be racist one must be acting to the detriment to all emembers of that race [see Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22, per Gummow & Hayne JJ]; Bolt clearly was not impugning all members of the aboriginal race.

And clearly not all members of the aboriginal race regard themselves as requiring compensation for being racially disadvantaged; in a 2010 survey 60% of the surveyed aboriginals were:

"in the labour force, working and living in capital cities and country towns; owning, buying or commercially renting their houses; and living like most other Australians."

Of the 40% who weren't the reason was primarily welfare dependence and lack of education in rural settlements; see:

http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-monographs/article/1238-indigenous-employment-unemployment-and-labour-force-participation-facts-for-evidence-based-policies

Make of that what you will.

Bonmot
<Cherful you obviously haven't read the Federal Court's ruling.
The law is the law - despite what your opinion is, despite what cohenite's is, despite what you think is the 'public'.

And sometimes the law is and has been shown in specific cases to be an ass

Non-sequitur Cherful

Maybe the law is an "ass" - but follow it we must, do you disagree?

Disobeying the law and its judgements can lead to anarchy.

Perhaps you don't understand ... neither Bolt nor his employer appealed the Federal Court's judgement.

I am sure he/they had much wiser, experienced and informed counsel than cohenite

a.k.a. Anthony Cox, lawyer and secretary of the 'climate sceptics party'

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/anthony-cox-39612.html

http://climatesceptics.net/author/anthony-cox/

bonmot
Non-sequitur Cherful

<Maybe the law is an "ass" - but follow it we must, do you disagree?

Disobeying the law and its judgements can lead to anarchy.>

The fact that we must follow a law whether imposed by Hitler, The Queen of Sheba or whoever, does not necessarily means the law does not have the potential to cause self interest groups to use it to gain advantage and hit people over the head with that law to shut up legitimate questions or concern

Neither Bolt nor his employer appealed the Federal Court's judgement.

Which part don't you understand?

If they or their QC's don't want to challenge the law, perhaps you should help them.

Sure, Cherful - have legitimate questions of concern - but Bolt makes stuff up to hit people over the head, your words.

Adieu

Bolt is the best journalist in Australia.

Hi again Cohenite,

Re: “You have either not understood my point or are wilfully ignoring it”.

Pretty sure I understand it. But it is just not supported by Justice Bromberg’s findings or anything else.

Re: “The point is, if all the litigants had equivalent aboriginality, why should some receive compensation?”

There are many sound reasons why some people apply for compensation and others don’t, and why some are granted more than others. A range of factors apply.

Re: “This point defeats any claim that Bolt was being racist.”

No, it doesn’t. Bromberg clearly found Bolt was racist at several points. Refer paras 303 to 335. “Race, colour and ethnicity were vital elements of the message and therefore a motivating reason for conveying the message ...” (327)

Re: “To be racist one must be acting to the detriment to all members of that race … Bolt clearly was not impugning all members of the aboriginal race.”

Bromberg disagrees. “That young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity, may be apprehensive to identify as Aboriginal or publicly identify as Aboriginal, as a result of witnessing the ferocity of Mr Bolt’s attack on the individuals dealt with in the articles, is significant to my conclusion that in writing the articles, Mr Bolt failed to honour the values asserted by the RDA.” (415)

It seems Australia’s doom that large parts of your media have now adopted wholly the Kelvin MacKenzie approach to newspaper content: abandonment of any pretence to actual journalism in favour of campaigns using whatever distortions and outright fabrications are required. Including, as Bromberg puts it, "hate propaganda".

Which brings us back to the original article. Yes, the media does exacerbate people's fears And, yes, the community suffers greatly.