News of the World:

David Edmunds writes: I would like to agree with Stephen Mayne that following the News Limited debacle in the UK there should be a media inquiry in Australia.

On the ABC’s 7.30 last week, John Hartigan, interviewed by Leigh Sales, said that such behaviour could not happen in Australian newspapers, because the financial arrangement were different, and there was a strong code of ethics. However, it is only a year or so since the Melbourne Storm mess in which it was shown that this News Limited operation deliberately and consistently cheated financially. News Limited management said they were appalled and knew nothing. Have we heard that since?

Jonathon Holmes on Media Watch on Monday described egregious breaches of News Limited’s own code of ethics. He showed that the editor of the Daily Telegraph was editing articles written in accordance with their own section 1.3 which requires that both sides of a story be represented, to actually delete one side of the story. If such a fundamental breach of an ethical code is being made by one of the senior editors, why would we suppose that it is the only breach?

It is obvious that some of News Limited’s best-paid and most senior commentators, for example, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman feel no such obligation to the News Limited code of ethics. Mr Hartigan claims that despite the laissez faire attitude to a code of ethics, there is some sort of cultural firewall between the operation of editors in Australia and those colleagues with whom they meet regularly, employed by the same company, who work in the UK.  Why on earth would we believe that?

News Limited has for as long as I can remember, believed that it can do whatever it likes in this country.  It conducts personal vendettas against public figures who take it on, for example, Simon Overland and Bob Brown.  It sees itself as a political player, not just as a commercial media operator, and one that writes its own rules. We have seen the rise of shock jocks, who clearly run to their own agenda, while using publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum, and with no intention of honouring the privilege attached to their licence. More latterly, Gina Rinehart has purchased a stake in free-to-air television, and simultaneously hired Andrew Bolt to ensure a complete lack of balance.

Of course there has to be a right to free speech, but given the power of the media organisations that exercise that right and the growing belief of their proprietors that the organisations can be a mouthpiece for their own views and prejudices, the public also has a right to know and understand their operation, and to ensure that they behave ethically.

After all, if the shoe was on the other foot, News Limited papers would be the loudest advocates for government action.

Ray Edmondson writes: Re. “Mayne: how to cross examine Rupert Murdoch” (Tuesday, item 3). Contrary to Stephen Mayne’s anticipation in his excellent piece, Rupert Murdoch did not self-destruct on world television. He may have been dented a bit, he may have looked every one of his 80 years, and he may have paraded his regret and humility, but with his hand banging the table repeatedly he refused to be held accountable for the actions of his staff and his company.

In News Corporation it seems the buck doesn’t stop with the boss, because he wasn’t told and he didn’t know (or perhaps didn’t  need to know) so it wasn’t his fault, was it? Resignation? No, he’s not going anywhere. Sure enough, the share price ticked up yesterday morning, while his Australian papers discreetly avoided headlining the saga on their front pages.  Business as usual. James Murdoch may have come out of the experience looking less equipped that ever to be the heir apparent, but that wasn’t going to surprise anyone anyway.

I didn’t watch the whole hearing. But from what I saw it seemed a most polite affair, lacking the forensic gimlet of a John Faulkner or the relentless logic of a Geoffrey Robertson. Perhaps British pollies aren’t of the ilk of Faulkner or Robertson. Then again, the fact that Wendi, sitting strategically behind her husband so she could eyeball the committee — all of whom must have realised that they were now on Rupert’s hit list — would have exercised a constraining influence. The Keystone Kops-type intervention with the cream pie, Wendi’s left hook and the bobbies hauling the miscreant off to the Bastille somehow didn’t seem entirely out of place.

The saga will continue — hopefully to better effect than Monday night — but we may have to wait for nature to take its course before News Corp gets a new CEO  and becomes less of a family dynasty.

James Burke writes: Re. “Pity the Murdochs, innocents lost in a world of knaves and fools” (yesterday, item 2). Milly Dowler has been dead for almost a decade, she’s been the face of the News of the World scandal for a fortnight, and she’s still being exploited by the Murdoch machine. The Murdochs and their stooges focus on the Dowler case in order to record their shock and outrage, parade their regret, sneer about public “hysteria”, and try to distract attention from the vast scale of the phone hacking and its extraordinary political implications.

Murdoch’s papers have long employed political blackmail as a strategy — expecting that politicians will favour their causes or face their front-page fury. News of the World appears to have engaged in common or garden blackmail, demanding that celebrities grant interviews or have their dirty laundry exposed.

With the hacking of politician’s mobiles, the potential for blackmail becomes a national security issue. Spies have long sought to exploit politicians’ personal failings in order to suborn them. In a London crawling with dubious Russian and Arab billionaires, the criminals and corrupt police working for the News of the World could well have had other clients.

Of course, the Murdochs may have their own uses for any political dirt that mysteriously falls into their laps (picture a bewildered Rupert: “How did that get there?” James: “I have no direct knowledge of that.”)

However disgusted we are by the Dowler case, let’s not forget the issues of blackmail, corruption and bribery that are at the heart of this enormity.

Megan Stoyles  writes: Murdoch’s biographer Michael Wolff got it right on Jon Faine’s ABC program in Melbourne on Wednesday about the Murdoch tag team performance: Rupert is too old and James is too young to head up News International.

As one mad enough to sit up and watch it (but frustratingly not long enough to see the shaving cream pie), I thought James dissembled skilfully, and Rupert, looking more like his mum every day, made me wonder if he would be completely lost for words.

With his sparse hair I could at least see he wasn’t having his answers relayed to him by an ear piece: “Not that no, nope,” “I didn’t know” etc were too tricky to remember.

George Crisp writes: Much has been said by various commentators that the lack of a “smoking gun” or other admissions, is a “good result” for the Murdochs. Really ? Do you really think everyone is going to buy that ?

And anyway the tactic of seeking the lesser charge of incompetence, rather than corruption, may be better from a legal standpoint, but is clearly inferior in the modern world of corporate dominance.

So either the Murdochs will succeed in convincing the world they were incompetent and destroy their boardroom status, or they will fail and wind up in jail.

More likely, the sham that was Monday night is temporary relief.

Barry Welch writes: Watching Rupert and James brought back fond memories of John Howard, Peter Reith et al — “Nobody told me , I didn’t know, it was a bad mobile” and so on. At least the Murdochs had a tried and trusted model to follow.

If it was good enough for children overboard and weapons of mass destruction, it would serve for a bit of phone hacking.

Andrew Haughton writes: Thanks to the British Parliamentary inquiry we know what the Murdochs didn’t discuss with the executives whom they appointed. What did they talk about?

Monckton:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. “Denniss: my tactics for debating Monckton” (yesterday, item 4). Richard Denniss says “there is no doubt that [sceptics’] co-ordinated efforts to mislead people have slowed down our efforts to prevent the catastrophic climate change our scientific bodies warn us of.”

So as usual in this debate, it’s all about predictions of doom rather than any observations (note — “warn us of”). But more importantly, Denniss assumes the opinion polls reflect that voters are being duped by Monckton et al rather than listening to those infallible climate scientists.

There is another explanation: I submit the public was paying close attention when scientists had to “hide the decline” (Phil Jones), admitted it was a “travesty” that they “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” (Kevin Trenberth), when Copenhagen descended into farce and all those IPCC errors were uncovered (Himalayan glaciers, Amazonian rainforests, etc).

So go ahead and compare climate sceptics to homeopathic quacks and UFO spotters, but the polls suggest the public is turning on climate doom-mongering. Ask yourself this — do you really think this government is in so much trouble because of a few characters such as Christopher Monckton?

Neville McCloy writes: I watched the National Press Club debate between “Lord” Monkton and Dr Denniss on Tuesday.

Monkton took task with a journalist when she asked why he does not present his research for peer review. He asked her to do more research before presenting questions. He rambled on about having had an article published in the American Physical Society Journal. Well I checked. It is a newsletter, not a journal and clearly states that the article has not undergone peer review as it is not normal practice for the society’s newsletter.

For goodness sake, why do we give these people air to project their repugnant views? It has become ridiculously distorted and is starting to undermine the excellent reputation that organisations such as the CSIRO has cultivated over many years of research excellence.

To be continually attacked by the likes of Monkton, Bolt and encouraged by deniers with authority or influence is a scandal.

Niall Clugston writes: Environmentalists, such as the federal government, seem to be unable to make a case. Christopher Monckton is a hereditary aristocrat (or “peer” if you prefer England’s Orwellian Oldspeak), but hereditary aristocrats no longer sit in the House of Lords.

If Monckton wants to claim a title, he can, but it only makes him look like a caricature. None of this is relevant to the climate change debate.

Meanwhile, the icecaps are melting. The time for action has slipped away, and all we have is hot air.

Diabetes:

Lewis Kaplan, chief executive officer, Diabetes Australia, writes: Re. “The glycemic index has passed its use-by date” (Monday, item 12). Diabetes Australia is no longer associated with the GI Foundation as suggested in the article. It’s true that we helped to found it but we withdrew some years ago.

The American Diabetes Association quietly withdrew its recommendation in 2002, but the message never got through to Australia. The Australian Diabetes Council tells us it “wants to end the myth that sugar causes diabetes”, apparently because sugar-free diets aren’t “much fun”.

And the folks selling the Low-GI stickers (the GI Foundation — a collaboration of University of Sydney, Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) still tell us it is “best to ignore the sugar content of a food and instead focus on the food’s GI”.

A director of the GI Foundation (Sydney University nutritionist Jennie Brand-Miller) even went so far as to say recently that “Unlike saturated fats, trans fats, salt and alcohol, sugar doesn’t actually do any direct harm to the human body”.

DIY blood test:

Angelo Caon writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 6). The suggestion that “One GP in regional Queensland is so disgusted with the excessive cost of pathology blood tests for patients on blood thinning drug Warfarin that he has purchased his own testing equipment” is quite laughable.

Pathology testing is payed by Medicare and if the pathology provider bulk bills there will be no out of pocket expense for the patient.  Point-of-care testing is becoming increasingly common for some tests and has definite merits (more rapid result and therefore adjustment to patients therapy)  but lower cost to the patient (or taxpayer) is not one of them.

To quote from an 18-month trial of point-of-care testing for INR (the test for measuring the blood thinner warfarin) conducted by the federal government “Point-of-care INR testing was also more expensive and led to a significant increase in the cost of GP consultations for each patient ($367 compared with $120 for patients in the control group)” and further “[INR testing] will always be more costly in general practice … Pathology organisations are set up for economy of scale.”

I’m quoting from an article from Australian Doctor, which is available online here.