In the Australian today there is an article by Caroline Overington.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/girls-ordered-to-visit-sex-offender-dad/story-e6frg6nf-1225840648724

As is normally the case with stuff by Overington, it's all about a supposed failure of the Family Court. As an activist for a presumption of maternal primacy in custody matters this is her stock-in-trade. In this case, it seems the girls were ordered to spend time with their father, who has a conviction for possessing child porn. A case just made for Overington and her faux moral outrage.

I don't want to discuss that case, here, there's no point. I'm interested in the last line of Overington's piece.

It says:"The eldest girl told counsellors she "did not want to spend time alone with her father" and kept repeating: `Please don't tell dad.""

I'm quite frankly appalled at Overington and the Australian for publishing that, if true. What purpose can be served by such flagrant flaunting of this child's earnestly expressed request for privacy?

In her zeal to present her activist claim against the Family court, I believe Overington has abused this child. She cannot sit back and claim a public right to know - this was a private request from a 10 year old girl in distress which she has publicised entirely for her own ends.

At best, it's trash journalism and Overington should be severely censured by the Australian.

I'm also puzzled as to why the Court would not also respect her expressed desire for privacy, since Overington presumably took the information from Court documents. Can anyone see any possible reason for that?

No wonder Antiseptic doesn't want to discuss the actual case that is the context of the final paragraph of Overington's report. If the report is accurate, the kids are afraid to stay overnight with their father, who has previously invited one of the girls into his bed and displayed "affection" that the Family Court found to be "in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age".

The child's privacy hasn't been breached, because the report quite correctly does not identify any of those involved, including the father. The only "abuse" of any child that I can see in this report has been perpetrated by the father. It seems to me that the kids have every reason to want to avoid being alone with the creep.

One positive effect of including the anonymous child's words in the report might be if her father read them and took notice of his daughter's fear of him that he's caused by his own actions.

I suggest others click on the link provided and judge for themselves.

I know you're being deliberately provocative here, Anti - but you really are grasping at straws this time, in your interminable campaign against women and children.

Journalistic integrity is a bit like military intelligence. It's a concept, but the reality ... well ...

I'm with StG
Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron in terms.

These columnists/journalists are there to increase readership to help sell advertising.

As for SO morals re the repeating what the 10 yo said is beyond the pale but par for these for sale moral guardians.

CJ
On the surface it looks sus but how much did mum etc put the idea into her head. Implanting new memories isn't that hard on young children.
Anyway we have a court system for a reason.
Personally before I get my rope out of the shed, I would like a lot more information.

@CJ Morgan: The child's privacy hasn't been breached, because the report quite correctly does not identify any of those involved, including the father.

Quite true. And irrelevant, as you must know. The child's request was "Please don't tell dad". Clearly dad has now been told in a very public way.

There may be argument's against Antiseptic's point. But that assuredly isn't one of them. If you want one, try showing that Dad already knew. It seems possible.

If the child's name and family were not mentioned how is it a breach of privacy? There are many cases of child abuse and this story could pertain to, sadly, a large number of them.

If the journalist named the family of course it is a breach of privacy especially given the child's concerns about "telling dad".

However despite Anti's primary concern about privacy, does anyone else feel a bit sickened by the fact that the father is allowed visits as long as he puts "locks on the bedroom doors". What sort of society are we becoming that recognises there is a problem and then says it's okay that dad is a pervert as long as the girls can lock the doors. Ludicrous.

While I have some empathy with men's lobby groups trying to achieve some equity in child custody or access to their children it is self defeating if there is an assumption that all children are lying and all mothers are planting the seed.

Surely we can do better than that in the interests of equality and get the fairest outcomes overall with child welfare holding priority over the interests of either parent.

In this case, based only on what this journalist has told us, the girls shouldn't have unsupervised visits with dad.

The fact that no-one seems willing to trust a major news outlet is also a major cause for concern. There may well be other issues that the judge considered but we aren't being told about. Saying "all authors have bias" is of little help when so much of the media has the same bias. It isn't feminism, as much as a paternalistic desire to protect women, even those who have behaved poorly.

The councellors appear to have breached client confidentiality.

@pelican: If the child's name and family were not mentioned how is it a breach of privacy?

You and I have very different views of privacy, pelican. If I tell you a secret I ask you know to reveal to person X, and later I find out person X knows and they found out because of something you said, indirectly or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, then you have breached both my privacy and trust.

Whether names were mentioned is completely immaterial. For all I know the other side could have played a guessing game. Whether the game was played out in a private conversation, or in public via a newspaper article is beside the point. Privacy is not just about "whether the public finds out". As a counter example, if a doctor revealed your medical records to your insurer and you were refused insurance as a consequence, I am sure you would say your privacy has been breached. It doesn't matter the public doesn't know your name, your insurers name or your doctors name. It fact it doesn't matter if no one else hears about it all. The fact is the doctor breached your very clearly understood privacy expectations.

As I said, defences from the newspaper might be the father already knew, or that although the kid requested confidentiality it was never agreed to. But this "the newspaper didn't reveal the names" is a total straw man argument.

As for what happened, here I am with benk. I am not more prepared to believe a newspaper report written by someone with an ideological barrow to push than I am likely to jump the moon. If I cared, I would check the court records myself I guess or seek an impartial biased summary of those records. As it happens I don't have the time to do that, and I am certainly not going to condemn the father, the mother or the court on the basis of what I regard as little better than hearsay.

Link to the case:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

The father is well aware of the child's fear of being alone with him. The issue was addressed formally and he responded via his counsel:

"The father’s counsel submitted that I should reject the views of A in relation to overnight stays as that seed was planted by the mother. I do not accept that submission. The clear evidence of Dr R was that there was no evidence of coaching."

I just can't believe the apparent confidence that abuse happens only at night. Throughout the report elements of grooming the children and other adults, intimidation, exploitation and control are apparent.

I wonder how much a parent actually has to do to be denied contact.

Hopefully after all of this he'll desist and try just being a decent father.

It is a sad case, no doubt about it, pelican.

But I'm with rstuart on the privacy issue.

We may not know who he is or they are.

But they most certainly do.

Therefore the plea, "Please don't tell dad" has been most comprehensively compromised.

How would you feel, if you confided in an authority figure on the basis that a very specific third party should not be told.

And then saw it published in the national newspaper.

Pericles: The child probably already knows that her father is aware because the partial disclosure had been the subject of interviews by
others and had been addressed in court.

Sadly, abused children and even adults often beg that the perpetrator not be told all sorts of things. Sometimes it's through fear of retaliation or punishment like, "If you tell that means you don't love me - so I won't love you back", but often it's because they really do care about the perpetrator - they just want the abuse to stop. For some kiddies, sexual abuse is the only way the perpetrator makes them feel special and lovable. That holds for a while, until they're old enough to realize their need for affection, such as all children have, has been misused to satisfy the adult's wants.

If the adults to whom the child was speaking failed to report it then they would be colluding with the exploitative adult's manipulative behaviour.

If the adults who are aware of the child's fears don't act on what they are told, then they can't really protect them (as the case shows; it's quite hard to protect them anyway).

Dear Anti,

I read your given website, taken from
The Australian by Caroline Overington,
15 March 2010. It seemed pretty straight-
forward reporting.

However, I am totally amazed by the Judge's
decision. How on earth can the judge grant visitation
rights to a father who's a registered child sex offender
to two children ages 10 and eight?
Especially when one of the
children seems terrified of her father.

This case needs to be re-examined. If this man has
behaved "inappropriately" with these children in the
past - he's lost any rights he ever had. The children
need to be protected. His rights should not even figure
in any of this.

He's a registered child sex offender.

Pericles
My point there would be people who would be able to identify the family.

As I said it is relatively easy to put false memories into a child's mind.

I also said we are judging the case from a biased source. We don't know all the facts.

If there is evidence that the father's intentions are inappropriate then the visits should be supervised (full stop).

But as I've said getting a rope for a lynching is premature and reactionary.

The issue that is fair to discuss is should a child be forced to go a parents home if they have expressed wishes not to?
The same conditioning could apply?

Foxy: "However, I am totally amazed by the Judge's decision."

That comment prompted me to look at the newspaper article.

I see the father is a registered sex offender. But not for having sex with children, but rather for looking at pictures. They don't say what pictures, and recall we register people who own inappropriate Simpons cartoons as sex offenders.

I know mine isn't the PC viewpoint, but banning him for seeing his kids because of that seems as reasonable as banning him from driving his kids to school because he has street car racing magazines. It tells you very little about the way he conducts himself towards his own children. Let me put it another way. Your husband liked porn? Of course he did; he is male. So he treated you like a porn star, and wanted you to behave like one? Of course he didn't. Most males don't want their wives to behave like porn stars. And believe it or not, most males don't want to have sex with their kids, even if they do own Simpson's cartoons portraying it.

The second thing was more worrying. It said "found the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had demonstrated affection ... inappropriate for a child of that age." If they had managed to prove the father was a paedophile he would be in jail for that now. But he isn't. So the possibilities range from him being a raging paedophile to a man being persecuted by a vindictive wife.

If he was anything but the biological father, you would simply say "tough" and ban him from seeing the kids. But he is the biological father, and if the wife is the unstable one the kids may well be better off if they maintain their relationship with him.

My guess is this position of not knowing the facts yet being forced to make a decision is the impossible position the judge found himself/herself in. And from that vantage point it looks to me like the judgement was a fair attempt at a compromise.

Here again is the link to the court details which includes references to many reports submitted for consideration:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

There isn't much point in arguing the merits of the reporting without looking at the court file.

The father had already been directed that he wasn't to take the children into his bed - but he repeated the behaviour.

One of his daughters had already detailed that she'd been in his bed and he had been badgering her.

His wife had already reported seeing him kneeling by one of the girls; she with bottom uncovered and he with his genitals in view.

These things had already been recorded and some of them investigated.

He wasn't just looking at porn but had recorded some of it on video, which is an additional offence. He excused his behaviour by saying that he gets anxious and when he uses pot he can't control his impulses (or words to that effect).

As I said, I'm only surprised at the naivety of the court in thinking that abuse only happens at night. It happens whenever an abuser can arrange access to the child and isn't usually always just a sex act, but a culmination of behaviours - leering, denying personal privacy (like walking in to watch while someone showers), sexual innuendo, intimidation and so on.

I am not saying the girls shouldn't be able to see their father (if they want to) but it should be supervised - no exceptions.

rstuart and Pericles
I can see your points regarding privacy in that even reference to certain facts may reveal some aspects that would have otherwise remained confidential. It is not the first time a journlist has ignored this in pursuit of a storyline. However without knowing the facts of the case or whether Anti has spun only one version of the facts I cannot comment. Perhaps the child was told the facts of the case would be recorded and the whole thing is a beat up after the event. Secondly if you told me something in confidence I would not reveal it.

However we have to part ways rstuart with the idea that those who actively view child porn are suitable to be around children let alone have shared custody. Unfortunately your view is very much PC if OLO is any indication.

Your assertion that if the father was a pedophile he would be in jail is naive. Do we assert that all thieves, rapists and drug dealers see the inside of a prison? For years we have seen rapists escape punishment such as the Indigenous case in QLD which saw a young child returned to the same community in which lived her rapists. The rapists were not convicted despite no dispute over the actual rape by the Judge. This does not mean they now suitable to be around children.

If any child does not want to visit with either their father or mother that wish should be honoured. When did we start coercing children to spend time with someone they were scared of just to appease some skewed notion of the rights of a parent.

Thanks for the responses, folks.

I would rather this didn't devolve further into a discussion of the judge's decision; he had a large amount of information to go on and much of it is ambiguous if his stated reasons for judgement are anything to go by. Suffice to say that as a "Registered Sex Offender" his offences are at the lower end of the scale and did not involve the girls or any physical action against anybody. The reason it was inappropriate for the girls to share his bed was that he had been ordered not to, based on the precautionary principle, not becausethere was any evidence presented that the girls had been sexually abused, apart from the mother's, who the Judge described as "unreliable".

It sounds as though both parents have been to some extent victims of their own personalities and the interaction between them, rather than especially nasty people. Much of the father's behaviour seems based on a wish not to be "controlled" by the mother's demands via the Court and much of her behaviour seems to be designed to bolster a claim to victimhood and hence, preferential treatment. Nothing to see there - it's standard Family Law fare.

That brings us back to the abuse of trust of this little girl. I'm prepared to acknowledge, as I did in my OP, that Overington was reporting from the judgement, which does ameliorate her offence somewhat, but as has been pointed out, it doesn't let her off the hook. I'll get back to her in a moment.

The psychologists who interviewed the girl had a reason to disclose her request. They were acting as agents of the Court, not as representatives of any party to the case- an important distinction. Their evidence had to be as complete as possible to fulfil their role. The ICL similarly had an obligation to ensure their expressed wish was heard and the Court had an obligation to hear the facts. All of those obligations were discharged within the Court.

[cont]

Overington's reporting had no such basis. It was prurient and designed to titillate and inflame, not enlighten. Yes, report the facts of such cases - there's a genuine public interest in publicising the judgements of the Court. There is no public interest in selectively reporting the Judge's reasons for judgement to highlight the distress of this little girl when being interviewed. It distracts from a dispassionate analysis, which, of course, is Overington's intent.

Ash Patil of Fathers 4 Equality has documented a list of emails he and others, including Tony Miller of Dads in Distress, have sent Overington on the subject of research into child abuse. She routinely deletes such emails unopened according to Patil http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/news/pg/news/view/771/index.php&filter=21. Fathers 4 Equality is not a radical or violent organisation and does not advocate for anything other than shared care.

Overington has a history of misusing her position as a journalist. In 2007 she threatened a political candidate with adverse press if he didn't allow her an interview http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/emails-explore-reporters-own-preferences-then-turn-nasty/2007/11/13/1194766675346.html. In that exchange, she reveals that she has been separated from her husband for 5 months. Her strident attacks on the shared-parenting laws stem from that time.

It seems likely she became aware that she might have to share her child with its father and decided to use her platform in the Australian to become an advocate against the Howard Govt Family Law changes. She has since written a novel on the subject of child abuse, which she is keen to promote.

I also commend the ABC's media watch report on Overington's efforts during that period. As a Walkley-award winning journalist she looks a lot more comfortable in the gutter.

As always, I have questions. In the age of New Media, is Overington's lackadaisical approach to balanced journalism the new paradigm? Am I being unreasonable in expecting a journal of record to demand a high standard of professional integrity from its staff? Is it necessary for journalists to disclose their own interests when writing op-ed pieces? Does the end justify the means, such that a child's distress is fair game to make a point?

Anti
Fair points about sticking with the privacy aspect. Must admit it is difficult to just contain comments to your main point while the decision is a bit hard to digest.

<"Am I being unreasonable in expecting a journal of record to demand a high standard of professional integrity from its staff?">

Someone who doesn't even report here truthfully demands integrity from others. The court's determinations about each of the parents and their evidence are not reasonably reported by your post.

General privacy is not the issue, though it remains intact. The child didn't want her father to know she'd disclosed; a moot request in that he was necessarily informed as a matter of court process concerned with her safety.

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

Ref for example to items 136-138.

"136. No complaint was made about this by the mother to any appropriate authorities for some years. The father denied the event and said that his recollection of it was that he was simply checking the child who was sick. I prefer the evidence of the mother.
137. Counsel for the father said the 2001 allegation was fabricated. I do not accept that submission. At the time the mother first disclosed that allegation she clearly believed that the father would not have anything more to do with the children as a consequence of being charged with child pornography offences. The mother felt ashamed that she did not act protectively of her children as a
consequence of her fear of the father and his intimidation of her. Whilst it is not without concern that she left it for so long, having regard to the dynamics of the relationship and her sense of powerlessness this explains why she did not disclose this earlier. I am satisfied the mother was truthful in giving that evidence."

How bizarre that you disparage someone else for not being "dispassionate" when your own personal experiences drive your hate campaign against women.

Btw the Family Court isn't an investigative body.

Here is another father's opinion of Fathers4Equality and similar groups. Ilya Shambat says that you and your groups do not speak for him and some of the reasons why are reflected in the case example.

http://www.xyonline.net/content/who-truly-speaks-australian-fathers

The court proceedings are a matter of public record, so I can't see that Overington deserves any censure for doing her job. If there is any fault in the publication of the daughter's request that her sex offender father not be told about her disclosures, it must lie with the presiding Judge who could have had the file sealed.

What gets me is those who attach greater primacy to the denial of the girl's request to not tell her father, than to the denial of her request that she not be compelled to stay overnight with him.

pelican: "Your assertion that if the father was a pedophile he would be in jail is naive."

It wouldn't be just naive. It would be wrong. But of course I did say it. I said "if they had managed to prove the father was a paedophile he would be in jail now". I was making a point about the degree of certainty the judge would have in the facts presented. Obviously, that certainty doesn't extend to "beyond reasonable doubt".

We will have to agree to disagree on the importance of him being a registered sex offender. But again you stretch it when you imply I think it is OK for him to around children in all circumstances. For a variety of reasons I don't think it appropriate he be a primary school teacher, for example. However, his own children are a very different matter. Frankly I find the idea of banning men from having contact with their own children whose sole crime was to look at child porn bordering on lunacy.

As for the rest of the case - I am not about to enter into the discussion about the conflicting claims and counter claims put before the judge. The judge has not doubt had years of experience in this sort of thing, and has no doubt done a better job of it than I ever could here.

CJ Morgan: "What gets me is those who attach greater primacy to the denial of the girl's request to not tell her father, than to the denial of her request that she not be compelled to stay overnight with him."

That is unfair, CJ.

The denial of access to the father is obviously far a great import. No matter what decision is made, it is going to cost someone dearly emotionally. Worse, it the decision rests on conflicting and uncertain information. I personally don't feel equiped to answer the question, and frankly I doubt anybody else here is either. That surely is a good reason for avoiding it.

In contrast, the privacy issue is fairly easy to think about. The one thing needed to fulfil the child's request would be the deletion of a single line from a newspaper report. That would be no great loss. Surely the child's privacy is worth more than the single line?

But don't interpret that avoidance of the first question as assigning it lesser importance. I don't think anyone here does.

'But don't interpret that avoidance of the first question as assigning it lesser importance. I don't think anyone here does.'

I don't think he seriously does. He just likes to ride that high horse, and grandstand this superior empathy thing he's got going on.

From the first post: 'I don't want to discuss that case, here'

Apparently it's not acceptable to talk about any side issue, peripheral point, if there is any relation to a wider issue that's more serious or emotive.

http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm

" AJA CODE OF ETHICS

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to

* Honesty
* Fairness
* Independence
* Respect for the rights of others

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed."

[cont]

"10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors."

As the national journal of record, the Austrlian would be reasonably expected to insist that its journalists subscribe to and live up to the ethical principles espoused. Murdoch expressly set a high standard of journalism when he launched the paper and has had a history of being very "hands-off" editorial policy ever since, which a series of editors have vigorously defended.

This particular piece of Overington's has failed on at least points 1, 2, 4 and 11. It also goes a long way to reducing trust in the profession. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this is not a new departure for Overington - she has been in trouble before for behaving unethically.

On the whole, with a few exceptions, this Forum represents a cross-section of middle-class Australia. For most of our lives we have all been newspaper readers, I suspect and I also reckon that The Australian appears on many a front lawn each morning.

What possible reason for purchase can there be if the journalism being presented is of an unreliable and unethical standard? Surely you can get that sort of thing from your favourite special-interest website or newsblog?

With new media posing an ever-greater risk to such important organs as The Australian, would you be happy to see a continued erosion of ethical standards from those like Overington, who write for the paper?

Fairfax goes out of its way to flag opinion pieces, making sure that it is understood by readers that they are reading a personal view, possibly designed to stimulate discussion, rather than reportage. Overington's piece was placed on the front page, as general news of the nation. If she was to confine this sort of thing to her op-ed pieces, I'd not be concerned.

As a former subscriber to the 'Australian', I agree generally that its journalistic standards have declined drastically in the past decade or so. Indeed, the same can be said of virtually every Australian broadsheet.

What is most interesting about this thread, however, is the article that has aroused Antiseptic's ire above all others. Every day there are articles published in Australian newspapers that contravene a strict reading of the Code of Ethics reproduced above, but it takes one about a Court controversially forcing unwilling children to stay overnight with their convicted child sex offender father to raise his hackles.

I think that Antiseptic should make a formal complaint to the Australian Press Council if he really believes that Overington's article has contravened journalistic standards to the extent that he thinks it does. With any luck, that disingenuous and misogynist project might occupy his time to the extent that he posts less garbage here.

<<< I think that Antiseptic should make a formal complaint to the Australian Press Council >>

I have been wondering all along why Anti has not pursued a formal complaint. I would be very interested in following the process which Anti could provide for us on this thread. Unless of course protesting the 'journalistic integrity' of the Australian was not his agenda...

Two responses and neither has tried to address the topic.

Whether I choose to make a complaint to the Press Council or not is irrelevant, as is the question of whether the Judge made the best possible decision. What do YOU think about Overington's ethical performance and what are your reasons? I've given mine.

I know that's a pretty tough question for CJ, who prefers to receive his opinions in conveniently pre-digested form but you usually have no difficulty expressing yourself intelligently, Severin. Give us the benefit of your view.

Out of interest, is anyone else offended enough to join in a complaint to the Press Council? I hadn't contemplated such a thing until CJ, flailing about for someone to tell him what to think, suggested it.

Anti,
If I thought it would result in anything more that, at best a polite letter then I might be persuaded to join you. Unlike CJ, I know that unless the issue is dramatic, the press council will ignore complaints particularly "on principal" ones.

I can only repeat that I don't/won't encourage the beast, in its race to the bottom of humanity's pre bipedal urges, by buying or supporting their offerings.

A succinct, respectful letter to the editor is far more effective. Others are diplomats first.

Preferably stick to one point/theme, simple facts and make it crisp. Any supporters you have should be encouraged to do the same and in their own words.

Thank goodness for those who expect something better than tabloid journalism.

Examinator, I suspect you're right about the response of the Press Council; they've been tepid at best in the past.

I do think you're wrong about "not encouraging the beast". Whether it's Google, MSN, Yahoo, Murdoch or Fairfax, some large corporation is mediating our information flow to a large extent. If we don't insist on quality, we won't get it.

Cornflower, I like your suggestion. I'd like to think of this thread as sort of an extended letter to the editor. Given the extensive and well-connected membership of this site, I'm sure that somebody connected with the Oz will have seen it. Possibly Overington may have seen it herself and modify her own approach. I hope so, because she's obviously a talented journo if her Walkley is any indication and this is embarrassingly poor stuff from someone of her calibre.

Walkley? Tracy Grimshaw has been short-listed for the Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year Award for her hatchet job on Matthew Johns!

It's definitely no indication of talent.

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/grimshaw/

Antiseptic

Well if you can't stomach the advice from CJ Morgan or yours truly, at least you can abide Cornflower's. Good that you are following through on your convictions regarding Overington. Please keep OLO informed of progress or not.

PS

Possession of child porn in many countries, including Australia, is a criminal offence. If I discovered my niece and nephew in the care of anyone who looked at child porn, well that person would regret their fetish/perversion - a lot.

I imagine that if Caroline Overington read through this thread she'd dismiss Antiseptic's contrived 'complaint' as the disingenuous misogynist bleating that it is. It's also unsurprising that Antiseptic doesn't have the courage of his convictions to lodge a formal complaint about what he claims is a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

Of course, we know that this beat-up is really just another attempt by Antiseptic to bash women textually, don't we?

CJ Morgan

Are you doubting Antiseptic's sincerity?

Give the man a chance to post his "succinct, respectful letter to the editor" here on OLO for our edification.

Oh look, Severin's brought her pet. Isn't it cute the way he only yaps at men?

Severin:"Please keep OLO informed of progress or not."

Still digressing. Do YOU think Overington's piece is ethically sound? Why?

What of the question of press credibility?

Houellebecq:"It's definitely no indication of talent."

You may be right, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Grimshaw is not entirely representative of the prestige of the Walkley.

Actually she's already won a walkley for that interview.

'I’ve been taught that a good journalist goes into any interview, any town, any story, with wide eyes and an open mind, lest she misses some important fragment her pre-directed blinkers won’t let her see. By that criteria alone, Tracy Grimshaw’s interview with Matthew Johns was a dismal failure of journalism: at its worst, it was polemic tabloid schlock, dripping with emotion, opinion and little else besides; at best, it was an opportunity wasted. For half-an-hour it held in its hands, as a captive interview subject, the journalist’s holy grail: an eyewitness participant, and from him we learned next to nothing about what he felt or saw or heard that night, his recollections squandered by an interviewer obsessed with the spectacle of a man on the ropes fighting for his life, and impressed with her own intimidating shadow looming over the top of him. The most enduring memory I have of the whole half hour is the ironclad morality of the interviewer. It’s just a pity Tracy Grimshaw’s opinion is not itself award-winning news.

Then again, it appears that maybe it is. '

I think Jack Marx deserves his I suppose. Don't think he'll ever get another one after that though.

Let's be fair to the Walkley people; there are 30-odd categories and the one that Grimshaw won in now has a lack of quality programming, with the Sunday programme gone and 4 Corners greatly reduced. Who do you choose in a contest between ACA and TT?

I should also congratulate Caroline Overington on her piece in the Australian today, concerning a NZ couple. It was concise, clear, to the point and unbiased. It would be even better if she were to report on all Family Law cases the Court publishes, instead of just the ones involving allegations of domestic violence or sexual impropriety.

I'm at a loss as to why her stuff is published in the "Legal Affairs" section of the business pages though. It's certainly to do with legal affairs, but I can't see the relevance to business.

I did not watch the health care debate, I never have liked a ciruus, without elphants.

I did, however catch some of the reporting on TV, of the momentous event

On 7 the reporter was asked who won the thing. He reckoned it at Rudd 65%.

The bloke on the ABC ducked the same question, then waffled on about "the worm", which had also scored the thing at 65% Rudd.

For some reason someone had taped the earlier 10 news, I just saw the end of it, & one of their phone in surveys, on the great event.

Imagine my surprise to see the public had scored the debate at 64% Abbott. I don't know what this shows about the integrity of journalists, it probably says more about their politics.

It's a pity the other channels did not do similar surveys, it would be interesting to know if their audiences reflect the preferences of their journalists, & would havs scored it differently to the 10 audiences.

It would appear on the surface of this, it's hard for journalists to have their integrity exceed their prejudices, just like us.