Comment: The article below smacks of incredible hypocrisy when you consider how unethical the Murdoch press is and how they use their media clout and political contacts to manipulate policy for the exclusive benefit of the Murdoch family.
The Courier-Mail Sat, 12th February 2000
Craig Johnstone
It is an old chestnut of Australian politics that if a government finds itself under pressure long enough, it will eventually start blaming the media for its troubles.
If the pressure continues, the grumblings soon turn to accusations of a conspiracy - that this or another media organisation is doing its damdest (sic) to destroy good government for its own evil ends.
But politicians instinctively turn to conspiracy theories to rationalise their failings. After all, most of them have been involved in the odd conspiracy themselves - to defeat a party leader, to isolate a certain minister, to ensure some policy or another never gets implemented.
What is less tolerable is when the media themselves encourage such talk.
Many in the Howard Government are convinced that News Ltd stable of newspapers, including The Courier-Mail, is indulging in unfair coverage of the Coalition, particularly in relation to the GST.
John Howard himself feels the government's decision last year to effectively limits News Limited's access to digital television technology has led to a campaign by News publications against him. He regularly dismisses News Limited editorials criticising him as "digitorials".
The accusation of a Murdoch conspiracy seems to be based on nothing more than a few headlines in southern tabloid newspapers.
Howard, protective of his family, complained at length to the editor of Sydney's Daily Telegraph after the paper ran a front page report detailing how his son attended a party at a house the night before a girl was murdered there.
Despite his attack on the company during his regional tour last week, Howard is now playing down claims of a News Ltd conspiracy.
Afrer all, why run around alleging conspiracies when News Ltd's competitors will helpfully do it for you?
In the Canberra press gallery, journalists from News Limited's rival, Fairfax, have displayed a new-found sympathy for the Prime Minister's sensitivity about criticism of his government.
And the thinness of the government's argument about an anti-Coalition by, News Limited did not stop the Bulletin magazine from giving a sympathetic airing to Howard's complaints.
Bulletin editor Max Walsh trotted out the government's claims without question, managing to throw in a few jibes about News Ltd executives in the process.
Not once in the article did Walsh mention that the Bulletin is one of a stable of magazines owned by Kerry Packer's Australian Consolidated Press whose sister company, the Nine Network, did very well out of the digital TV decision.
If you are going to sympathise with a government claiming some sort of Murdoch conspiracy because of a policy decision which hurt News Limited, what's wrong with mentioning you are being paid by someone who benefited from the same decision?
After spending two pages faithfully repeating the claims of an anti-Howard conspiracy, Walsh concluded there was probably no conspiracy at all - but warned there may be one at work if all News Limited publications supported the GST!
In its editorials, The Courier-Mail has consistently supported the GST and accepted the government's mandate to introduce tax reform. But the paper has been less supportive of the compromise package that has come out of talks with the Democrats, and has always warned that the 'devil is in the detail".
Well, now there is detail to be scrutinised and The Courier-Mail, along with any other newspaper, Murdoch-owned or not, would be doing a disservice to its readers if it did not ask questions and criticise on their behalf.
Howard's sensitivity to media coverage of the GST and any other policy of his Government is understandable.
But media companies who lend a sympathetic ear to claims of conspiracy and cuddle up to the Government are more likely to be trying to gain a competitive advantage for themselves rather than attempting to fully inform their readers.