Jonathan Holmes

The lies and deception of Media Watch and host Jonathan Holmes in defence of Julia Gillard.

Media Watch and it’s host Jonathan Holmes have been caught out lying, deceiving and distorting the truth in a recent program that went to air on Monday the 5th of September in relation to the Julia Gillard / Fairfax Media / News Ltd freedom of speech scandal. The program was deliberately and highly defamatory of at least Michael Smith who is a presenter on the Fairfax Media owned radio station 2ue and also Bob Kernohan. (Click here to watch the show or read the transcript)

But the most scandalous part of Jonathan Holmes story is that he also implies that the Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration is defamatory. By doing this Mr Holmes is implying that Bob Kernohan is a criminal, because lying in a statutory declaration is a criminal offence. This is a big call by Jonathan Holmes and it is one he has gone to ground on and is refusing to answer questions that I have sent him.

Media Watch is a television program hosted by Jonathan Holmes on the ABC which is the Australian public television broadcaster. The main focus of the program is to hold Australian Media to account for the accuracy of their stories, whether that be television, radio, newspapers or online. This is what Sashka Koloffa. Media Watch reporter, said on the 23/9/2010 “We look at the work of Australian journalists to make sure they are accurately and fairly reporting their stories.”

But Media Watch and Jonathan Holmes believe they themselves are above and beyond being held to account, this is shown by the questions that I have sent them and their failure to respond. (See emails below)

Background

My last few posts have been about Julia Gillard’s history with helping rip of the AWU and if you are new to this story please read my previous post at: (The Michael Smith 2ue emails to Julia Gillard and the Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration.)

Th facts are Julia Gillard did help her sexual partner, Bruce Wilson, rip off the AWU in the early 1990’s which she has admitted, but denies doing it knowingly. It has been estimated the total fraud exceeded $1 Million and no one has ever been charged. Yet Julia Gillard has never signed an affidavit or statutory declaration stating what she knows and when she knew it. She has never given a detailed account to the AWU nor any law enforcement body. Nor has she given a detailed account to the media. And as we know as soon as the media started asking to many questions the media was closed down by personal phone calls from Julia Gillard. It must be noted that concealing a crime is also a crime and given that Julia Gillard has evidence of the AWU being ripped off but has not given a detailed account, the prima facie case against Julia Gillard for the concealment of the fraud would have to be regarded as being strong.

What we have is a major unsolved fraud case. One role of the media to ask questions and to continue to ask questions until crimes are solved. This is what has happened with the Craig Thomson HSU credit card scandal, which was basically dead until he did an interview with Michael Smith at 2ue and was caught out lying. Which has led to a more wide scale fraud investigation into the Health Services Union as more details of fraud have come to light. If Micheal Smith had not asked those questions to Craig Thomson it is almost guaranteed that the police investigation would not be currently afoot.

The Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration

Jonathon Holmes starts of his show pointing out how the Glenn Milne article had been pulled from the internet and an apology published by News Ltd. He then states that the Milne article had not been legalled which is the responsiblity of the Australian’s Opinion editor, Rebecca Weisser and goes on to say “It’s amazing that Ms Weisser is still in her job.”  He then talks about Andrew Bolt and how he had put some of the Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration on his blog site.

Jonathan Holmes then says “In the circumstances, News Ltd had little option but to cave in to the Prime Minister’s demands, take down the column, apologise – and take down Andrew Bolt’s posts too.”

Well this is straight out lies and deception by Jonathan Holmes and he knows it. He is meant to be an expert in media laws and protocol. By saying that he is also implying that the Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration is full of lies and Mr Kernohan has committed the criminal offence of making a false statutory declaration.

It is lies by Mr Holmes as he would be well aware that when a word or part of an online published article is disputed or incorrect then the part in dispute is taken down not the full article. Given most of the Glenn Milne article was old news and had previously been published the first question Mr Holmes should have asked was why did the whole article come down. By saying “News Ltd had little option but to cave in to the Prime Minister’s demands, take down the column, apologise – and take down Andrew Bolt’s posts too.” he is implying the whole article and Andrew Bolts and Mr Kernohan’s affidavit are defamatory lies.

A prime example of this is a post I did on Kerry Stokes which he did not like. He had a lawyer send me a nasty letter demanding that I amend my post by deleting certain words and sections. They did not demand I take down the whole post as they can not do that. As it turns out they had no right to ask me to amend my post so I did another post on the threatening letter. (Click here to read: Kerry Stokes threatens legal action against blogger.)

Jonathon Holmes then goes on to talk about Michael Smith and his attempt to play an interview with Bob Kernohan. I will get to Michael Smith part in a minute but there is one key part where Jonathan Holmes implies that the Bob Kernohan Statutory Declaration is defamatory lies which again implies that Bob Kernohan committed a criminal offence making a false statutory declaration.

Mr Holmes says in the show that “2UE management have told Media Watch” “we do not have sufficient evidence at this time to support the interview.” Well that is 2ue sitting on the fence.

But from that Mr Holmes makes the statement “See Michael, that’s how defamation law works. However honourable your source, if you make defamatory allegations in this country you have to be able to prove that they’re true.” Where does Mr Holmes get the defamation part from? All 2ue said was “”we do not have sufficient evidence at this time to support the interview.” From that Mr Holmes decides that Bob Kernohan’s affidavit is defamatory.

Bob Kernohan should be consulting a lawyer (if he can find an honest one. PS. Avoid Slater & Gordon) because he has an open and shut case to sue Jonathan Holmes, Media Watch, ABC, and maybe others e.g Julia Gillard, Fairfax Media and News Ltd for defamation.

Lies about Michael Smith

Jonathan Holmes in what he said about Michael Smith of 2ue in his show lies, contradicts himself and distorts the facts like there is no tomorrow.

Jonathan Holmes starts off “Michael Smith is the afternoon host of Sydney radio station 2UE, owned by Fairfax Media. And the Friday before last, he launched into readings from Bob Kernohan’s year-old stat dec … Smith either didn’t know, or didn’t care, that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times.”

The problem with this is that did know and did care and put questions to Julia Gillard directly which is covered in my previous post where you can see the emails yourself and given that they where on the 2ue website Jonathan Holmes would have been aware. Michael Smith even spoke about the 2007 Glenn Milne – Julia Gillard interview on his show which once again Jonathan Holmes would have been aware given Mr Holmes talks extensively about what Michael Smith did and didn’t say on 2ue.

Jonathon Holmes then later says “Gillard has already explained herself in Glenn Milne’s 2007 article.” What Mr Holmes does not say is that it Ms Gillard says very little in the article and what Julia Gillard does say beggars belief (she straight out lies). I covered and dissected the interview in a previous post (click here to read: Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.)

But then Jonathon Holmes contradicts himself and says “But unlike Andrew Bolt, Michael Smith didn’t accept the earlier denials.” Well  before Mr Holmes was saying “Smith either didn’t know, or didn’t care” now Mr Holmes admits Michael Smith did know, “he just did not accept them”. Well it must be remembered that Craig Thomson had dealt with the allegations against him multiple times and then got caught out lying by Michael Smith because he kept on asking questions. See Mr Holmes that is how it works you keep on asking questions until they trip themselves up. Just like Julia Gillard did in the 2007 interview with Glenn Milne, although you claim it as proof of her dealing with the allegations, unfortunately for yourself a lot of your viewers are not that stupid. And the so-called other times  “that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times.” are nothing more than Julia Gillard denying the allegations, she does not give detailed answers to any questions.

And as I have already stated but is worth restating here is that Mr Holmes then says: “See Michael, that’s how defamation law works. However honourable your source, if you make defamatory allegations in this country you have to be able to prove that they’re true.” Mr Holmes is clearly implying that Michael Smith has defamed Julia Gillard.

Michael Smith should also be consulting a lawyer and instituting defamation proceedings against Jonathan Holmes, Media Watch and the ABC and maybe others.

See Jonathan, that’s how defamation law works. However honourable your source, if you make defamatory allegations in this country you have to be able to prove that they’re true. Or as one of your viewers pointed out, “substantially true”, or in the public interest or fair comment. With your lies, deception and deceit you do not qualify for any defence Mr Holmes so you are up shit creek without a paddle.

It is interesting that no where does Mr Holmes talk about freedom of speech, nor is he critical of Julia Gillard contacting News Ltd executives multiple times to have s story pulled while she is deciding whether or not to have a Media Enquiry and its terms of reference. He defends this by pointing out that News Ltd say that Ms Gillard did not raise a Media Enquiry in her phone conversations. No need to as that would have been a White Elephant in the room at both ends of the phone line when she did call.

Make no mistake, Jonathan Holmes is a lying, conniving and deceitful person who will deliberately distort the facts to achieve his goal. He does not hesitate to defame people and could not care less of the consequences for them. In the show that I am discussing he in effect even calls for the sacking of one News Ltd employee. He does this while hosting the tax payer funded program Media Watch.

Once again I have sent Jonathan Holmes an email notifying him of my post and again requesting that he answers the questions in the below email that he has so far refused to do. If he wants to respond I will update this post, otherwise he will be known as the grub that he is.

Update 19/9/2011 I have received a response from Media Watch about 12 hours after this post was published. It is at the bottom of the post.

But last but not least and back to Ms Rebecca Weisser and where Mr Holmes goes on to say “It’s amazing that Ms Weisser is still in her job.” Well Mr Holmes I suggest that you should consider your future summarily, as I will be surprised if you last much longer.

I understand the appropriate body to deal with Mr Holmes is the Australian Communications and Media Authority which I will send copy of this post and we will see what happens. Not much I suspect, as one government body holding another to account almost never happens, but wait and see anyhow.

Below are the emails that I sent Media Watch and Mr Holmes which they are refusing to answer. After reading the above it is not hard to guess why.

From: Shane Dowling [mailto:shanedowling@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:53 PM
To: ‘mediawatch@your.abc.net.au’
Cc: ‘news@seven.com.au’; ‘news@ten.com.au’; ‘glw@greenleft.org.au’; ‘cannews@winnsw.com.au’; ‘news@canberrafm.com.au’; ‘news@canberrafm.com.au’; ‘news.sydney@aap.com.au’; ‘news.canberra@aap.com.au’; ‘westinfo@wanews.com.au’; ‘cannews@winnsw.com.au’; ‘ccnews@capitalradio.net.au’; ‘triplejweb@your.abc.net.au’; ‘rhadley@2gb.com’; ‘loakes@nine.com.au’ (loakes@nine.com.au); ‘aca@nine.com.au’; ‘merrittc@theaustralian.com.au’; ‘stutchburym@theaustralian.com.au’; ‘alan.jones@2gb.com’; ‘editorial@chronicle.com.au’; ‘7.30syd@your.abc.net.au’
Subject: Unanswered questions for Jonathan Holmes

Dear Mr Holmes

I have not received answers to the questions in the below email. Although I did receive your read receipt. Can you please respond to the questions ASAP.

Regards

Shane Dowling

From: Shane Dowling [mailto:shanedowling@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 11 September 2011 11:43 PM
To: ‘mediawatch@your.abc.net.au’
Cc: ‘news@seven.com.au’; ‘news@ten.com.au’; ‘glw@greenleft.org.au’; ‘cannews@winnsw.com.au’; ‘news@canberrafm.com.au’; ‘news@canberrafm.com.au’; ‘news.sydney@aap.com.au’; ‘news.canberra@aap.com.au’; ‘westinfo@wanews.com.au’; ‘cannews@winnsw.com.au’; ‘ccnews@capitalradio.net.au’; ‘triplejweb@your.abc.net.au’; ‘rhadley@2gb.com’; ‘loakes@nine.com.au’ (loakes@nine.com.au); ‘aca@nine.com.au’; ‘merrittc@theaustralian.com.au’; ‘stutchburym@theaustralian.com.au’; ‘alan.jones@2gb.com’; ‘editorial@chronicle.com.au’; ‘7.30syd@your.abc.net.au’
Subject: Questions for Jonathan Holmes in relation to story done on Glenn Milne, Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith

Dear Mr Holmes

I would like to ask some questions for a story that I am writing on the Media Watch show that went to air on Monday the 5th September in relation to the Julia Gillard / Fairfax Media / News Ltd spat.

In your show you said that the current reporting on the Julia Gillard’s history with Bruce Wilson and the AWU started with Michael Smith at 2ue.

Are you aware that it actually started with a post I did on my website, Kangaroo Court of Australia, on the 7th of August 2011, titled “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” Based on what I wrote in my post Julia Gillard’s history with helping Bruce Wilson rip off the AWU is clearly relevant today. It is even more relevant given her attempt to close down reporting on it.

One of the key issues in that post that I pointed out was that Julia Gillard in the 2007 interview with Glenn Milne said ““I was obviously hurt when I was later falsely accused publicly of wrong-doing. I didn’t do anything wrong and to have false allegations in the media was distressing.”

Yet Julia Gillard was happy to falsely accuse Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I said in the post:

“On December 2, 2010 Julia Gillard said in relation to the United States diplomatic cables leak (Cablegate): “I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website – it’s a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.” Yet when she was asked what laws had been breached she could not name any. Even so she still referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland supported Julia Gillard although he was not as stupid to go as far and he said that they had likely broken the law “The unauthorised obtaining of the information may well be an offence” but he also failed to name what laws had been breached.”

Is it a case of that you didn’t know or didn’t care? If you did not know can you confirm that you will correct this in your next show? If you did not care can you please explain? Obviously if you had of mentioned that it started with my post for legitimate reasons it would have undermined your whole story. I hope it is not a case of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

It is widely known that it is estimated that over $1million was stolen and never recovered which makes it a major unsolved fraud case and justifiable to ask questions of those involved until it is solved, for the next 50 years if need be. In your show you never reported this. Is it a case of that you didn’t know or didn’t care? If you did not know can you confirm that you will correct this in your next show? If you did not care can you please explain?

You say that “Michael Smith is the afternoon host of Sydney radio station 2UE, owned by Fairfax Media. And the Friday before last, he launched into readings from Bob Kernohan’s year-old stat dec … Smith either didn’t know, or didn’t care, that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple”

Well if you had listened to his program you would have heard him discuss things like the Glenn Milne story in 2007 that you refer to as an example of Julia Gillard dealing with is publically. Also if you had of checked the 2ue website you would have seen the email correspondence between Michael Smith and the Prime Minister’s office where Michael Smith asks to be directed to where Ms Gillard has dealt with it. (see attachment). Is it a case of that you didn’t know or didn’t care? If you did not know can you confirm that you will correct this in your next show? If you did not care can you please explain?

The impression you give is that Julia Gillard has given numerous detailed accounts of her knowledge and involvement in the fraud and theft from the AWU. Can you please advise where at least one of these detailed accounts by Julia Gillard is?

You say “See Michael, that’s how defamation law works. However honourable your source, if you make defamatory allegations in this country you have to be able to prove that they’re true. It’s a tough hurdle, but it’s been that way for a very long time.” Most viewers would have believed that you are implying that Michael Smith and/or Bob Kernohan have defamed Julia Gillard. Can you please supply me with the evidence for this?

One of the people in your comment section wrote: “I hate to “lawyer” you, Media Watch, but while the line that “if you make defamatory allegations in this country you have to be able to prove that they’re true” is punchy, it isn’t quite right. First, you only have to be able to prove its substantially true. Secondly, particularly given the obvious public interest in information about the PM’s judgment, a public interest defence of qualified privilege could also have been available (on the basis that Bolt, Milne and Smith’s audience would have had an interest in receiving the information about the allegations).” Which is correct.

If anyone had made any suspected defamatory comments about Ms Gillard it would also be covered by “fair comment” given all the evidence and Ms Gillard’s failure to give a detailed account. Is it a case of that you didn’t know or didn’t care? If you did not know can you confirm that you will correct this in your next show? If you did not care can you please explain?

Did you have your show legalled. If so can I have their name and contact details?

Can you please respond asap in case I have some follow-up questions.

I have also sent this to other media as it obviously in the public interest.

Regards

Shane Dowling

Ph 0411 238 704

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

Media Watch’s response:

I sent another email this morning letting Media Watch know about this post and asking them if they had any comment and also asked why they had not responded to my questions. One of the subscribers to this blog also sent the auto generated email notifying them of the new post to numerous media, politicians and myself and Media Watch with their comments. Two of his friends hit reply all and sent it to the same people with their comments. Adding the two emails above that I sent last week, Media Watch received six emails and then responded at 5.41pm today. Below is their response.

From: Media Watch [mailto:mediawatch@your.abc.net.au]

Sent: Monday, 19 September 2011 5:41 PM

To: ‘shanedowling@hotmail.com’

Subject: Re: Questions for Jonathan Holmes in relation to story done on Glenn Milne, Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith

Dear Mr Dowling,

Thank you for contacting Media Watch. We value feedback from our audience.

The aim of Media Watch is to analyse and comment on the Australian Media. The subject dealt with in episode 30 is polarising and as expected, we have had considerable viewer feedback both positive and negative. This episode specifically examined the resurgence in the media of allegations concerning Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s relationship, while she was a lawyer at Slater and Gordon in the early 90’s, with a union official, Bruce Wilson. We specifically looked at the publication and subsequent removal by The Australian newspaper of an article by Glenn Milne, as well as the attempts by 2UE radio announcer Michael Smith to broadcast an interview with Bob Kernohan, the former President of the Australian Workers Union. We examined the intentions behind revisiting these old allegations and the legal implications of publishing or broadcasting them.

The purpose of Media Watch has always been to turn the spotlight on those who make the news, and those in the media who provide the information we need to make decisions about our lives. We have a team of lawyers who approve every script however as per the ABC privacy  policy, private contact details of staff are not disclosed without their permission.

As always we will continue to keep an eye on all media including the ABC and we always welcome tip offs from our audience.

Kind Regards,

Lin Buckfield

Executive Producer

Media Watch

They avoid most of the specific questions that I ask. They say: “revisiting these old allegations and the legal implications of publishing or broadcasting them.” What garbage. Where is the legal advice they quoted? They did not. Media Watch should have considered the legal implications of making the false statements they did.

They also say: “. We have a team of lawyers who approve every script however as per the ABC privacy  policy, private contact details of staff are not disclosed without their permission.” Must be a pretty poor team if they approved the script. As per the above post Media Watch are happy to name and shame Ms Rebecca Weisser and in effect call for her sacking but their own staff are protected species.

It is not lost on me that if Media Watch put questions to other media and they took 8 days to respond they would make a song and dance about it. They waited until I did the post and then responded and only after another 4 emails. Not a good look Media Watch. It makes me wonder how a media show with such low standards and accountability can hold other media to account.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and promote this post. Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation, buy a t-shirt, coffee mug  or a copy of my book. The links are below.

If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

Thank you for your support.

Tags: , , , , , ,

32 Comments on “The lies and deception of Media Watch and host Jonathan Holmes in defence of Julia Gillard.”

  1. Geoff Brown September 19, 2011 at 4:16 am #

    Great Post on Kangaroo Court – I have previously written a similar post on a previous media watch – http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/09/media-watch-ignores-abc-charter.html.

    ABC presenters constantly abuse the ABC charter, meanwhile Michael Smith’s career is in limbo.

    Despicable!

  2. joe lenzo September 19, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    this is starting ot sound like a “i hate julia” website

    • Shane Dowling September 19, 2011 at 9:14 am #

      Your right, but it needed to be followed through as very few others are. One thing I must point out is that even though the focus of this site is corruption in the Australian judiciary, the Prime Minister of the day is the number one judicial officer. They have the final say in the appointment of federal judges and magistrates. Something that I did not put in the post which is reported in the Australian is that Julia Gillard’s boss at Slater & Gordon, Bernard Murphy, was appointed a Federal Court judge about six months ago. It is interesting that he had spent the last 15 years at Maurice Blackburn lawyers and was chairman for the last 5. That means he left Slater & Gordon at about the same time as Julia Gillard when the AWU fraud was blowing up.
      And who do you think appointed him a Federal Judge?

    • pB September 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

      She’s apparently our Prime Minister and is not being held to account for at best gross incompetence, at worst conspiracy to commit fraud. Should she be held to a lesser standard of behaviour than you or I would be held to? coz I can tell you now that if you or I had done this the legal response would be a whole lot different.

      • VERONICA NICHOLLS September 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

        THIS STORY IS SHOCKING ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING.

        I WONDER HOW MANY MORE UNION SCANDALS HAVE BEEN COVERED UP.

        MICHAEL SMITH IS A GREAT AND COURAGEOUS PERSON AND ALL AUSTRALIANS SHOULD BE PROUD OF HIM.

    • Blackswan September 19, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

      @ Joe Lenzo – “this is starting ot sound like a “i hate julia” website”

      Joe, you aren’t paying attention. These posts are not about Julia Gillard. Shane Dowling has had the testicular fortitude to simply ask a series of questions, seeking answers and accountability of the people holding the highest political and judicial offices in the nation.

      Our Mainstream Media, and the ABC in particular, have displayed a reprehensible bias and become the propaganda arm of this Green/Labor/non-Independent Govt. – an unelected Govt cobbled together in a series of backroom deals after the election.

      For any Media Inquiry they initiate to exempt the ABC from scrutiny of such outrageous drivel as the recent Media Watch program, is evidence enough of what a witch-hunt it would prove to be, targeting any critic of Govt policy or revelations of the alleged criminal behaviour of MPs.

      Is that what you want Joe? A continuation of the lies, the obfuscation and cover-ups, fraud, theft and money-laundering? Let’s toss in a whole heap of tax evasion for good measure.

      We need a Free (unbiased) Press in order to be a free Nation – and we need our Parliamentary Representatives to be beyond reproach. When they fall short of that mark we need to know about it, not be spoon-fed a litany of lies and cover-ups.

      Shane, your work is appreciated.

    • STRINGY 11 December 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

      not without good reason

  3. Neil Weekes September 19, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    Just because our PM states that she has denied these allegations of any wrong doings with Mr Wilson, with whom she had an earlier relationship while he was a member of the AWU, does not mean that these allegations have no substance. Has there been a formal police investigations of these alleged misappropriation of union funds? Has the PM been formally interviewed? Has she been asked to make a formal statement in Parliament? Has she been asked to make a Statutory Declaration stating that she had no knowledge that the accounts she helped set up were being used to miappropriate Union funds?

    How many other people strenuously deny being involved in wrong doings only to be found implicated after a formal, unbiased investigation?

    How can anyone believe the then Ms Gillard, who was a practising solicitor with the highly respected legal firm, Slater and Gordon, had no knowledge or no suspicions on the purpose of these accounts? This whole mess really needs to be formally investigated by the Police as, apparently, some $1,000,000.00 were misapporpriated from Union funds, yet no formal investiagation appears to have ever been conducted and no charges have apparently been laid!!! If you or I had been involved in such fraud, we would be in jail by now, make no mistake!!!

    • pB September 19, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

      A million dollars, stolen from workers who paid in good faith, and all under the “careless” (or worse?) eye of One who is now a Labor Prime Minister. No investigation, no restitution, lots of arse-covering and stonewalling. So much for the Party of the workers.

    • VERONICA NICHOLLS September 21, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

      NEIL WEEKES, YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT POINT.

      “THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT I LEAD”
      THAT IS ONE LIE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COVER UP NOT EVER.
      HOW CAN A MILLION DOLLAR FRAUD ESCAPE INVESTIGATION.
      AND MORE TO THE POINT,HOW COULD SUCH A NAIVE PERSON (MS GILLARD)
      BECOME A SENIOR PARTNER AT SLATER&GORDON AND CONDUCT AN AFFAIR WITH A CLIENT WITHOUT ANYONE A THE LAW FIRM NOT NOTICING AMAZING.

    • STRINGY 11 December 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

      exactly we would be in gaol ,some people have the powers to be in their purse and are immune from prosecution

  4. John September 19, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Well done, lets shut down Media Watch. Extremely biased and sit on a high moral pedastool condeming others but are guilty of the same and worse.

  5. ESTER September 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    THANK YOUR FOR YOU OPEN OUR EYES… I FOR ONE WAS BLIND. THANKS FOR THIS BLOG.

  6. Carol September 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    Following with interest!

    ABC need to be reminded of their charter, I don’t know anyone who watches ABC now as it has swung so far to the left (as seen in Q & A for example).

    Question is Who watches Media Watch? (and that can be read in both ways!)

    Thanks Shayne

  7. Shane Dowling September 19, 2011 at 11:58 pm #

    I have updated the post as Media Watch did get back to me with a response. Not a great one but a response anyhow.

  8. Carol September 20, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    The answer is a typical non-answer. It reminds me of Question Time, when the answer actually consists of a small speech on the subject but does not even attempt to get to the heart of the question.

    The only tiny spark of interest was the claim that they had received a lot of comments, Some positive and some negative. But your valid point that they had completely misrepresented the facts was not addressed and one had the impression of a

    Of course the bigger questions arises…when will the ABC start reporting without bias? And what can be done? The Four Corners show last night was in similar vein with the usual bias and one side of the story given only. We deserve better than this from the ABC.

  9. Shane Dowling September 20, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    Media Watch in last night’s program had a screen grab of this website. Why? I do not know. Although I could have a few guesses. It shows up at the 4 minute and 8sec mark. You can watch it here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3321170.htm

  10. Guardianangel September 22, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    The Australian had a very relevant reply from Jonathon Holmes on the Freedom of the Media issue.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/let-no-one-license-
    truth-and-understanding/story-e6frgd0x-1226142103785

    He mentions this site, the Kangaroo Court of Australia as well.

    To his credit he knocks the wish of this government to increase regulation over print media to online and of course so he should.
    Don’t believe for a moment however that this government and Mr Conroy will not try to install this increased regulation so everyone who wishes to have this freedom, which we all enjoy here on this particular great blog site, should not be complacent and fight it.

    i gave Mr Andrew Bolt yet another chance to support his colleague last night Mr Michael Smith over his sacking from Fairfax over just this very same fight for FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    I sent him this post:
    “Posted I Andrew Bolt’s Blog- “Smith Claims Fairfax Sacked him for his Politics”
    in response to Dave from Perth on first page
    21 Sept 2011
    Submitted 10.22pm . There were 26 comments at the time.
    As of this morn 9.47pm no further comments had been added.
    My post was not allowed on.

    It reads:………
    “Michael Smith has risked his journalistic career on revealing this story. Being an ex policeman, he has a huge sense of trying to bring forward justice and truth out into the open. His fight is our fight. IT IS A HUGELY IMPORTANT FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN AUSTRALIA.
    Like all good journalists, he has pursued this one because he felt the right of the public to know things which are extremely relevant to the motivations, judgement, associations and character of the current government.
    AT THIS POINT THERE IS NO BIGGER STORY.
    His sacrifice should be supported by all of Australia. A petition is now online for Freedom of Speech and freedom of the press in support of this man.

    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-michael-smith-reinstate-him-to-2ue.html

    Please please allow this post to go on Andrew!
    End Post

    i really don’t know what to say.
    .

  11. Guardianangel September 22, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    Hopefully The link to the Australian article is working better bellow

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/let-no-one-license-truth-and-understanding/story-e6frgd0x-1226142103785

  12. gav123 September 23, 2011 at 5:55 am #

    I wish to thank Media Watch for showing this website on National television. Since backroom lawyers have shut down many free speech media outlets who are publically investigating suspect criminal bahaviour of the highest office in the country with the coverups, as 2UE have, I can now see through all the mud and make my own decision.

    Keep up the good work

  13. Shane Dowling September 24, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    Senator Michael Ronaldson asks Julia Gillard what other media bosses she contacted to stop reporting of her past associations? Click here for Ronaldson’s speech on the Andrew Bolt Blog.

  14. Deadman September 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    A week ago Holmes was credulously accepting any denial of wrongdoing as fully exculpatory, this week he was defending governments’ tame experts and their official findings as indubitable truth beyond suspicion. Holmes—rather strangely for a chap who supposedly watches the media—has seemingly failed to notice that the scientific peer-review process is completely compromised and that many see governmental inquiries and reviews as just more propaganda.
    Sadly, the argument from authority is ever best for Holmes.

  15. Joe Ras October 31, 2011 at 10:10 pm #

    I love Media Watch, never miss a week – love to see the squirming afterwards.

    At times the sanctimonious Media does need a “Watch” – I am glad for that.

    Today The Oz and The Telegraph is indulging in “regime change” and I for one want to read a “Newspaper” which contains proper news – not anti-government propaganda.

    In America they now have fake news programs that ham up Fox News and the like. Somebody needs to take on the Media – they themselves sit in judgment on others, so why should it not be done to them?

    Keep in mind Media Corporations are NOT democratic and internally are highly autocratic – in other words, Herr Murdoch would not like to be critically questioned about anything – so he shouldn’t ???

    The Media needs to be held to account and SOMEBODY has to do it.

    • mike williams March 6, 2012 at 8:52 am #

      “The Media needs to be held to account and SOMEBODY has to do it.”

      Meaningless and hysterical hand waving blather..
      If some sections of the media take on stance, and other sections take another stance..so what.
      Are you seriously suggesting that a govt body which is built around “consensus” views now patrols all this.
      Perhaps you should live in north korea if you want that sort of thought control.

  16. STRINGY 11 December 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    talk is cheap let your vote count and rid australia of this vermin

  17. oscar December 20, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    great work on this site shane dowling .so rare to have a site that isnt owned by media or has to hhold back or be restricted to suit the corrupt high end of people.julia is naive she said at 35 well for naive she only needed a scent in the air of support to stab rudd.hardly a naive woman.misleading and unforthcoming = naive these days well done julia

  18. kurt flahavin July 26, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    Holmes is the worst mediawatch host in it’s almost 25 year history. Holmes is a arrogant old man who is still the mediawatch host because the ABC won’t have another job for him once he leaves the show. The other 6 hosts that mediawatch had were mostly very good, but Holmes has mostly been very poor. Holmes report on Mike Smith and Glenn Milne on last years mediawatch episode was the worst, biased mediawatch report of all time. Shame on you Jonathan Holmes.

  19. Michael November 22, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    It’s the publishing of the statement (stat. det. or not) that is defamatory, not the making and signing of the stat. declaration. Saying it is defamatory to publish it does not necessarily mean the person making the statement knows it to be false and has perjured himself. 2ue’s lawyers seem to have doubts that they could prove the truth of the allegations – maybe your charge should be against those lawyers, not Holmes.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Julia Gillard appoints Bernard Murphy, her partner in crime from Slater and Gordon Lawyers, as a Federal Court of Australia judge. | Kangaroo Court of Australia - October 17, 2011

    […] Julia Gillard has appointed Bernard Murphy as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. When the $1 million fraud and theft of the AWU hit the fan in 1995 Ms Gillard and Mr Murphy both left Slater and Gordon lawyers around the same time as Ms Gillard’s boyfriend Bruce Wilson left the AWU for his part in the fraud and theft. (Click here to read previous postings for the background – 7th August, 28th August, 5th September, 11th September and 19th September) […]

  2. The day the Australian media died. | Kangaroo Court of Australia - November 15, 2011

    […] I receive a response from Media Watch in relation to the questions I asked on 11th of September. (Click here to read the post and the emails) One of the key parts in the post is where I say ”I understand the appropriate body to deal […]

  3. Kangaroo Court of Australia interview on the ABC’s Media Watch show. | Kangaroo Court of Australia - April 23, 2012

    […] I did an interview with the ABC’s Media Watch show that went to air on the 5th of March 2012 in relation to the Ray Finkelstein’s media inquiry report. It was a surprise that they would call me given the harsh post I did on them in September last year titled “The lies and deception of Media Watch and host Jonathan Holmes in defence of Julia Gillard.” (Click here to read the post) […]

  4. Julia Gillard’s corrupt past raised in parliament by ALP member Robert McClelland. | Kangaroo Court of Australia - June 24, 2012

    […] The ABC television show Media Watch came out in support of Julia Gillard with an extremely biased show which I did a post on the 19th of September 2011 titled “The lies and deception of Media Watch and host Jonathan Holmes in defence of Julia Gillard.” (Click here to read the post) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s