The deep involvement of News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen in what we now know is the tainted Sofronoff inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann has led to plenty of scrutiny and criticism.
The behaviour of Walter Sofronoff during the inquiry was, we now know, quite extraordinary — possibly unprecedented. It’s hard to recall any inquiry or royal commission in modern times that has been so characterised by such inappropriate contact between the inquiry head and a third party — let alone a member of the media engaged in campaigning directly on the issues being contested by that inquiry. Sofronoff’s justification that it was appropriate for him to have contact with the media doesn’t even come close to covering the sheer volume and time he dedicated to texting and speaking to Albrechtsen, lunching with her, sharing documents and evidence with her and, possibly, obtaining her input to drafts of his report.
Albrechtsen was, clearly, a player in this inquiry, not a journalist. Nonetheless, she was doing her job of securing access to someone crucial to the issue she was covering. To obtain such high-level access to someone at the very heart of one of the biggest stories of the day was, bluntly, great journalism. I’d wager many journalists around the country can only envy the extent to which she got access to the head of a major inquiry. You can rebuke the use to which she put that access but still marvel that she obtained it.
Sofronoff, if he seriously thought part of his job was relations with the media — and that’s the first time I’ve heard the head of a major inquiry claim that — had the responsibility of appropriately managing those relations to the benefit of his inquiry, not giving privileged access and, potentially, a drafting role, to one member of the media.
The problem is not with Albrechtsen, engaged in doing her job, so much as her employer. News Corp was — and is — engaged in a campaign of merciless character assassination of Brittany Higgins. It is devoted to the task of exemplary punishment of her for the damage she inflicted on the Liberal party — along with Liberal MPs and senators who continue to pursue her.
Will News Corp, or the Coalition, ever be satisfied that they have inflicted enough damage on Higgins? Or on anyone involved in the prosecution of Lehrmann (for, we must remember, a sexual assault he has always denied)? It seems not, despite the extensive evidence of the gruesome toll the News Corp campaign, and relentless litigation, has taken on Higgins.
Indeed, quite possibly there are some engaged in the campaign against Higgins who would be content to see it take as heavy a toll as possible, to ensure every staffer, every woman, every prosecutor, every journalist gets the message not to embarrass the conservative side of politics.
The Albrechtsen-Sofronoff relationship is a kind of micro version of the larger problem with News Corp. It is a malignant participant in the public affairs of the country. But it remains a cancer in our body politic because people in power allow it, and enable it. No one compelled Sofronoff to develop such a close relationship with his News Corp interlocutor. No one compels Labor politicians — Bill Shorten the honourable exception — to tug the forelock to the Murdochs, as is happening right now on the news media bargaining code. No one compels News Corp’s media competitors to treat its lies and propaganda seriously, as though it was an actual media outlet.
It is not a media outlet, but a foreign-owned political player engaged in selling hate and division. If it is a pustulent tumour, it is also a foreign body lodged here and allowed to remain. Powerful people and institutions allow the damage that this foreign company inflicts. And the rest of us wear that damage like a rash.
Getting access to Sofranoff may have been great journalism by JA, but nothing after that was journalism. It was lobbying, advocacy, messing with the administration of justice. If JA got wind of some left-leaning journalist coaching an inquiry head, she would crucify both the journalist and the inquiry process. News Corp ‘journalists’ are not just blameless employees, they are crucial enablers of the agenda. JA doesn’t get a free pass from me, sorry.
And like one’s first experiences of their writing or journalism over decade ago, was their propensity for (now common among RW MSM & influencers) Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak e.g. underplaying racism towards non whites versus claiming white people are the real victims of racism…..
In “partial defence “because she gets in on the scoop … sure ; Assange is in jail for a decade and maligned getting a scoop on war crimes perpetrated -fact ;if the scoop in this matter showed actions illuminating objective innocence or guilt – then the scoop in this matter might just justify a journo interfering in the sacrosanct justice process – nuh its just a bad look and is mired in sexist bias and abuse – grubby …and like that stuff in the UK with Brooks / Big M and the poor family of dead victim – abusing her private phone by illegally tapping … to flogg copy for the olligarch of business cartels
Albrechtsen just doing her job? Can anyone recall any other journalist running sustained campaigns against the credibility of women complaining of rape in not one but two cases? (One tragically posthumous.)
yep sadly it is done to get in with the boss and maybe there is a dodgy claim ; but the one sided sexism on that awful Sunday show – and the widespread misogyny and assumptions are gross and hear say at best ; the fact a charimatic seasoned woman abuses her status without more says that we need lots more biological women to report on the situation from ethical and relevant agency with quality copy showing a depth in the reporting and through lived life experience
Is it good journalism to actively and deliberately undermine the judicial process?
I would hope that most journalists in Australia, given the opportunity to access the head of such an enquiry would have the ethical gumption not to use that position for personal gain, but instead – for the ‘public interest’
I’m more inclined to put most or all responsibility for any undermining on Sofronoff, after which Albrechtsen took full advantage. If somebody robs a bank by blowing open the doors of the vault with explosives, or forces the manager at gunpoint to open it, that’s a plain robbery. But if somebody approaches the bank manager to politely ask if they can see the vault, and the manager takes them in there and helps them to the loot, it’s a rather different affair. Arguably, the manager would be the robber, and the other person merely received stolen goods.
Is an inquiry under the ACT Inquiries Act 1991 necessarily a judicial process?
If the bank erroneously transfers you bulk cash that you’re not entitled to, and you spend it, you have stolen the money. It is illegal. People have gone to jail for it.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be that of bribery. It is illegal to both offer, and receive a bribe. Likewise, it is unethical for both Albrechtsen to seek to influence the process, and for Sofronoff to allow himself to be influenced.
They can issue warrants, require people to appear, and require documents to be produced. Close enough to a judicial process if not actually one.
Yes, but that would be an inadvertent error (and still not robbery). Can anyone doubt Sofronoff knew exactly what he was doing? And my analogy does not put Albrechtsen in the clear. As I said, she received the goods. That is not allowed either, although it is not robbery.
Wow! What inducement do you accuse Albrechtsen of using to influence Sofronoff? There abolutely must be one if that’s the analogy. Why do you think she initially did any more than any journalist should: just asking him to talk? After which it seems she realised she was dealing with a useful idiot.
.
Just mostly, or fully in the clear.
Analogies don’t need to be 1:1 (I think that’s sort of the point of them even?). Whether or not inducement occurred isn’t necessarily relevant. my point is she sought a favour unethically, and it was granted unethically. We could use other analogies – state capture, insider trading, related party transactions, idk other things I’m sure. It is ethical if not corrupt behaviour by both parties.
Sorry to keep deleting and reposting. Its your own fault though for telling me I can do it the other day 🙂
Fair enough, we all know no good deed goes unpunished…
Analogies need not be, and in practice never are, exact, but they still need some basic correspondence. Offering an inducement is fundamental to bribery. Once you’ve conceded there was no inducement, and so no bribery, we are near enough in agreement: she asked for access (that’s her job, near enough) and Sofronoff, for reasons beyond comprehension, not only agreed but went much further.
yes “higher standard” is expected in higher office …. Look at our leaders …. crikey – and these are the scribes to prop up this rubbish industrial data political estate – propaganda and gaslighting and selling off our sovereign democracy and public asets – she either knows its a race to bottom or is making “N0 1 ” comfy in a top job
no that is substantive law- not a philosophical point – you might get away with the crime but it is a crime to keep gains illgotten
What are you trying to argue about? My comments have already referred to receiving stolen goods, is it not clear to you that denotes doing something wrong?
I don’t see Albrechtsen as a journalist, rather, as most News Corp employees, a propagandist and pamphleteer who sometimes uses and trades on the craft of journalism.
As for Sofronoff, the word that springs to my mind is besotted. Reminds me of the sad pathetic conservative men that flocked to Hanson, who clearly met, in their minds, some deep emotional need. Sofronoff’s foolish infatuation has successfully besmirched his credibility and reputation while Albrechtsen sails serenely on. Still I suppose it makes a change from how such encounters usually turn out. However, sympathy is best reserved for the actual victims of this frolic.
There does seem to be a lot of besmirching around at the moment, especially on the reactionary side of politics.
Yes. They continually spout it and then they wallow in it while trying to spread it around. Ley provided the latest poster version. Having no shame is their postmodern shitck. Along with being value free and post-truth. Anything that gets attention is valid and is the only needed test of what it is acceptable to say. In this world who is speaking confers the credibility rather than what they say. Half assed postmodernism that is actually a return to pre-modern tribalism. And that’s probably disrespecting the truth of what real pre-modern tribal life was like.
No fool like an old fool? As good an explanation as any.
Yes indeedy, AP. I had the same gut feeling. Sofronoff seemed to wallow in the gratification of being an ‘insider’ and playing with the big boys, albeit Albrechtsen is neither.
Suddenly being elevated to the inner circle of newsmaking must have been a heady experience for the dude, previously only mixing it with old grey law types.
Having said all that, might one add that, regardless of Mr Keane’s pathetic softsoaping of Albrechtsen’s ‘coup’, the whole episode remains an unpleasant reminder of how walking in the chook yard only gets you sh*t on your shoes.
Albrechtsen regards herself as a player as well. Sofronoff just sounds incompetent. How can lawyer not know that you don’t spend days talking to a journalist like Albrechtsen – or any other journalist – about the inquiry, except in very general terms.
You mean a “hack like Albrechtsen”, she’s not a real journalist’s bootstrap!
You won’t have an argument from me on that!
Broadly speaking, Newscorp doesn’t have journalists because it isn’t a bona fide news outlet.
Newscorp employs Murdoch creatures.