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.