*...going through Annika Smethurst’s underwear seem to be nothing more than straight intimidation...*

How do I get a job like that?

And as for defending anything about the ABC band of cultural vandals, who cares?

Quite frankly 99% of everyday Australians have nothing to be concerned about.

Dan.

Yes, we need an irrevocable bill of rights that protects rather than punishes freedom of speech, freedom of the press and genuine ETHICAL whistleblowing,i.e., the exposure of war crimes and crimes against humanity, genocide, political malfeasance etc, etc!

Aside from a very early example, none of the above fit, narcissistic hedonistic (hero to villain) Julian Assange, who should face trial as a Russian operated pawn (moralless grub) and (rapacious) spy for trying to hack into the state secrets of our premier ally!

And should stand trial for his crimes, all of them!

As you and I would also surely have to too, were we as equally guilty of his list of allegedly heinous, deplorable crimes. In a do the crime do the time scenario/outcome!
Alan B.

On what basis does one support whistle blowers, even in principle?

There may be circumstances in which crimes or gross negligence of incompetence should be disclosed, but there are ways to do that within the law and journalists with Clark Kent fantasies are no part of that.

Murray Hunter's contribution is pretty much worthless as a guide.

Julian Assange has been "smeared", Hunter says. Yes, but only by his own actions over many years. Like hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy after skipping bail. Assange is the finest example of the vainglorious fools who convince themselves that they and only they are the sources of all that is good and moral.

Hunter notes that "all action taken by authorities is concerned with capturing those who leaked information to journalists". That is because those who have leaked such information have broken the law.

Hunter seems to be a supporter of the Sally McManus school of public administration: if you don't like a law, take it upon yourself to ignore it. And what's Hunter's point about "old" laws? If legislation has not been repealed or amended it is current law and one might have expected an academic to know that.

In our system, federal public servants do not "own" the information they acquire in the course of their work. It is not theirs to bestow upon journalists or others. Nor are they obviously the sole arbiters of what is in the public interest or what is a completely informed point of view. They do not obviously have a better comprehension of an issue than do their bureaucratic superiors or those elected to office.

Hunter claims implicitly that the AFP should not have informed the Malaysian and Indonesian governments of crimes by Australians on their soil. But, in contrast, whistle-blowing by people with private agendas is fine, apparently. He does not say what action we might expect those governments to take in relation to crimes committed by their citizens on Australian soil.

According to CatallaxyFiles this morning, Smethurst’s story was a “bogus non-story” of no public interest. She claimed that the powers of the ASD ‘could have’ been expanded, but it was a “conversation within government”, a government which advises that it does not intend to increase powers or to spy on citizens. No decision had been made, so it WAS NOT whistleblowing. Smethurst’s reporting was “grossly irresponsible, tantamount to gossip”.

As the poster says, a free press should NOT mean a free pass on responsible reporting.

Much of what passes for journalism these days is “shoddy, biased, bordering on propaganda, and fake that seeks to undermine democracy at every turn”.

Nothing needs to be said about the ABC that hasn’t already been said a thousand times. Assange and Manning are where they should be.

The author's sweeping generalisations on the moral and legal purity of Wikileaks forgets its recent threats to muzzle the press.

WIKILEAKS THREATENS COURT ACTION - ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR JOURNALISTS' FREEDOM OF SPEECH

In a move to prevent real journalists from doing to Wikileaks what Wikileaks does every day to Democratic governments, January 7, 2019 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wikileaks-emails-journalists-with-97-false-and-defamatory-claims-to-avoid-in-reporting-on-founder-julian-assange/

Wikileaks emailed journalists with a list of 97 “false and defamatory” statements about its founder/publisher Julian Assange after claiming efforts to defame him had “reached a new nadir”.

It said the number of “false and defamatory” claims made against Assange had “accelerated” since his internet access at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived for more than six years, was cut off last year.

This rise was “perhaps because of an incorrect view that Mr Assange, due to his grave personal circumstances, can no longer defend his reputation”, it said in the email sent out to journalists.

Before listing 97 “false and defamatory” claims about Assange and Wikileaks itself, the email concluded: “The purpose of this list is to aid the honest and accurate and to put the dishonest and inaccurate on notice.”

It is believed that the list originally contained 140 claims, but the version published by Wikileaks today had some sections taken out."

WIKILEAK'S ITSELF PLACED A SECURITY CAVEAT on its Email List as “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”

But Wikileaks was forced to make the Email List (reproduced here http://pastelink.net/m69m ) public after the List was

LEAKED by JOURNALISTS who DEFIED WIKILEAK's LEGAL THREATS.

Well researched, reported and accurate/PROPERLY VALIDATED Journalism Pete.
Alan B.