Hi again Joe,

You seem still to misunderstand what it was that the PM said was 'completely untrue'.

It is fairly important that we know precisely what was 'revealed' in the Wednesday 29th news story, and what had been reported and confirmed earlier.
So, Joe, please read the article carefully.

You say "The rumour, as I understand it, was - along with a host of peripheral issues - that PM Gillard offered the position of FM to Bob Carr, then under pressure, withdrew the offer."

No, Joe, this is not at all accurate. The PM offered the position to Bob Carr on Monday. That is true. That is not a rumour. That was first reported on Monday evening. The Sydney Morning Herald reported it on Tuesday morning in an accurate article by Phillip Coorey. No-one disputed it, because it was well-researched. It was confirmed by Bob Carr. So that part of the development of the saga is quite true. No-one bothered to ask the PM if it was true, because there was no need to. It had already been verified by Carr. It was definitely not just a rumour.

Then we proceed to Wednesday when The Australian fabricated the 'news' that there had been a mutiny in Gillard's ranks and that Gillard had been forced to withdraw that confirmed offer to Mr Carr.

That story was entirely false. There was no mutiny. The offer to Mr Carr had not been withdrawn. The PM had not been forced to do anything at all.

If you listen to what the PM actually said, she was quite specific. ‘The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue.’

See? She was NOT denying Coorey's report in the SMH on Tuesday that she had offered the job to Mr Carr. She was specifically refuting the claims in The Australian that she had been forced to withdraw the offer.

And the fact that Bob Carr is now Foreign Minister is pretty powerful prima facie evidence that she was correct.

Hi again Don,

No, not claiming inside knowledge. Not claiming ‘certainty’ about anything either.

Regarding anonymous tips, yes, Don, I received these too as a reporter. Sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes malicious, sometimes altruistic, sometimes a mix.

Back then, the tip provoked further research until evidence for the claim emerged. Only then would the story run. Sometimes this took a while.

This is still the case here in Europe, and in most Western countries where standards haven't shifted.

Unattributed allegations obviously allow distortions, blatant lies and sheer malice to flourish, as evident in all Murdoch publications worldwide. eg. last Wednesday in The Australian.

That piece would not have run in Australia until recently. Four serious problems:

1. The sheer number of unattributed quotes: “Senior government sources said … It is understood that … Another senior government figure told … The source said … One angry minister lashed out, saying … there were suggestions she should … it is understood she is considering … Labor MPs told The Australian yesterday that … Labor MPs wondered whether …”

One or two unattributed quotes are okay for colour, as long as they are consistent with the attributed quotes. But they weren’t.

2. Attributed quotes actually contradict the main thrust. "Earlier yesterday, Mr Crean said it was his preference to continue as Regional Australia Minister but made clear he would take his lead from Ms Gillard. 'The Prime Minister is showing a new assertiveness - that will be demonstrated in the way in which she constructs the cabinet,' he said. 'The healing process has begun ...'"

3. Reporters never use Opposition bagging of Government or Government self-praise. Except in Australia and North Korea. "Tony Abbott added to the speculation, telling reporters that …"

4. Insertion of opinion in what purported to be hard news. "Another senior government figure told The Australian last night he doubted whether drafting Mr Carr would help Ms Gillard with her self-proclaimed aim of healing wounds ..."

Good grief! That is an attributed expression of a personal opinion. That has to be embarrassing even for a Murdoch reporter.

Cheers, AA

AA: OK. I can't add any more,and I'm not close enough any more. But I'll keep my ears open. It may be as you say. Certainly the Press gallery tends to hunt as a pack, but that's been true since the 1960s, in my knowledge. I'd be pretty certain that if there is more to it than you say, we'll know some of it before long, certainly before the election. If nothing turns up, then you will have been proved almost certainly right.

AA: "@Raycom, have you read the Hansard yet?

Pretty sure you will find that both Ms Bishop and Mr Abbott did indeed mislead the Parliament with their assertions that the PM’s choice of Bob Carr as foreign minister had been overruled."

I have re-read Hansard, and I totally disagree with your interpretation. Neither Ms Bishop nor Mr Abbott mislead the Parliament by asking their respective questions.

Alans twisted bias perception of the press ignores the pathetic attempts by the Fairfax media to deny that Rudd was even going to challenge Gillard (a fact conveniently ignored by Alan). It was all just Murdoch press talk as far as they were concerned. That certainly was very low press from the ABC/SBS/Age/SMH and the usual arms of the Labour party. Then again selective truth rests very well with this Government.

Abbott is desperately trying to take the limelight away from the goings on of last week, all of a sudden some policy ideas have come forward.
Abbott and Bishop were all for the suspension of standing orders, over something that did not eventuate.
If it is seen that Abbott misinformed parliament, he will be in very hot water.