Crikey lifer Justin McMurray writes:


Geez, looks like
Crikey’s more “respectable” owners have attracted a new type of
subscriber – wowsers! Critics of Crikey’s coverage of the Downer
scholarship seem to miss several points. One, the coverage made
abundantly clear that this was not about (let alone an attack on)
Georgina Downer. Also, do those critics know anything about the concept
of “perceived conflicts of interest” (hint: they’re just about as bad
as actual conflicts)? Lastly, why else subscribe to Crikey if not to
have these questions asked and issues raised? Turn the heat up Crikey.
It’s what we pay for and what you do best.

Subscriber Grace writes:
You
have done the right thing in posting all those negative (and mostly
silly) comments about your story. Very good form, Crikey. And you
should keep the pressure up on the nepotism front, as your first
correspondent suggested. The story is excellent and needed airing, well
done. When I started reading your story on Georgina Downer I was
thinking ho hum until I got to the part where you reported that she had
third class honours. Double take. What! This smells to high hell.

A subscriber writes:
Geez you people can’t even
PRETEND to not be leftist conspiracy theorists! What a pile of
horsesh*t that story was. Mr Downer’s daughter is not an MP and not
fair game. As for it being in the public interest? Now you’re trying to
justify a crap yarn on the most flimsy of grounds. Give me a story
about something with a little more substance than tupperware-transparent
conservative hating. Not petty rubbish like this. Lift your game
Crikey. The Government bashing is getting old and tired and very very
boring.

Alan Hatfield writes:
You might be
copping abuse from some of your readers but there are others – and I’m
one – who want to know about this sort of thing. There is certainly a
legitimate debate over whether this is a big deal or not, about whether
there is a conflict of interest here or not and whether the lady in
question has been unfairly assisted or not in achieving her award. But
at least the issue is being debated when you keep feeling that
so much of abuse of power in this country goes both unreported and
unremarked. My only plea is that you make every effort to be objective,
rational and accurate. Little has emerged on this matter so far to
suggest you have failed on any one of these three counts. Finding out
what others do not publish is one big reason I subscribe to Crikey.

Graham Bell writes:
Reactions
to the Downer’s daughter story gave me the best belly-laugh in ages.
Crikey, you said Australia was a fragile democracy: Australia hasn’t
been a “fragile democracy” for years; a “broken democracy” is more like
it. Corruption in every tender, rorts for insiders in every project,
cover-up in every program, litigation hanging over every criticism,
nepotism in every selection process … and a timid, compliant press
minimizing every serious scandal while making a great hullabaloo about
every minor issue. This is sad but this is the reality of Australia in
2005. I feel a little sorry for Downer’s daughter; she herself may be
quite innocent but were those involved in her selection innocent too?

Subscriber Simon writes:
I
think a lot of the responses from readers have missed the point. The
point is that here is an example of John Howard’s own Ministerial
Conduct guide being breached. The breach is that a perception has been
created that someone has used their position to influence a body so
that they or their family benefit in a financial way. The perception
has grown given the prestige of the award and that his daughter only
had 3rd class honours, when people who had 1st class honours were not
even interviewed. If this is acceptable then where does it stop? We are
talking about $50,000 here, plus the prestige of being selected as the
recipient of the scholarship. No small bickies. We have clear rules
around actual members receiving gifts that have to be declared – are we
heading down the murky path of allowing gifts to be awarded to
relatives undeclared?

Subscriber John writes:
Holus-Bolus!
Have you stirred up a WASP nest or what? What a bunch of wealthy
fascist porkers they sound like. And did I see one of them refer to
Downer as a statesman? My ar*e he is. Ultimately though, who cares?
The rich will get richer regardless of Crikey’s exposes.

Chris Langan-Fox writes:
Guys,
Gals, As your defence of your Downer daughter story stated, “it was a
story about power and perception”. You have misused your power and
given yourselves an unfortunate perception, even amongst your friends.
Was it worth it?

An anonymous subscriber writes:
Either
Downer’s daughter is a hell of a lot brighter than her father or this
was a fix. Does she have the qualifications normally required to get a
Chevening? Does she meet the criteria? I know they are very difficult
to get – I was looking at trying to get one (for my PhD at Cambridge,
which I ended up financing myself due to ineligibility).

Squatter Hamish writes:
This
“Crikey only attacks conservatives,” diatribe is rather tiring.
Downer’s daughter’s scholarship is not a Left v Right issue. It’s
raising questions about the merit behind the award. Had it been Bomber
Beazley’s daughter in the same situation, Crikey would have reported
with the same scrutiny. Making it into a “stop attacking the Liberals”
issue is just distracting from the original purpose of the story.

Subscriber John writes:
Isn’t a “Third Class Honours Degree” a “Pass Degree”? When did Honours Degrees drop beyond Second Class?

An anonymous subscriber writes:
I’d
agree with most of the criticism from your readers regarding Ms
Downer’s scholarship (ie it would not be worth reporting and your story
is a gutter-press style beat-up)….EXCEPT for the mention of her 3rd
class honours degree in the context of the scholarship being to one of
the world’s most prestigious (for better or worse) institutions AND its
funding by a government with whom Australia arguably has a “special
relationship”. As far as I’m concerned, I smell smoke and I’m
interested in whether you find a fire….

A Crikey subscriber writes:
Having
read some of the comments in today’s newsletter, I was a bit surprised
about the scatter-gun vituperative in some of the feedback. To me, the
salient point in the Crikey story is that the Chevening appears to be a very competitive scholarship, and that it appears it
is unusual for it to be awarded to anyone with less than an upper
second class honours (ie lower second, or even third). THAT is the
apparent discrepancy which raises questions about possible conflicts of
interest. To talk about children of high-achievers being high-achievers
themselves appears to have little relevance in this particular
case; in my field of study at least, third class honours has the stigma
of an effective fail amongst those hoping to continue their studies, as
even lower second class honours is usually insufficient to win further
scholarships. Maybe that isn’t the case in this instance though – the
controversy could be fairly easily settled if one could find out how
many other candidates with third class honours have been interviewed,
and subsequently received this particular scholarship.

An anonymous subscriber writes:
You
say that: “Yesterday’s story was not gossip, nor was it disgraceful,
reprehensible or irresponsible.” That may be, but I think most of your
media-based readers just thought it was a weak news story. It certainly
didn’t deserve the extent of coverage you gave it (it was probably
worth a par or two). We used to like Crikey because it was a nice mix
of hard-edged flippant cynicism. Please don’t start to take yourselves
too seriously. Just keep breaking good hard news stories.

JM writes:
Good
on you Crikey! I found it strange that for such a great news site you
obviously have so many deluded readers! Everyone’s going on about the
poor little Downer daughter and how she must have “earnt” it. Well if
she did earn it, prove it! Do these readers really know she did earn
it? If they really believe that a well-known (in any form) father,
mother or family plays no role in some of the benefits these children
get in life – they’re off their freakin’ tree!! I actually know of a
girl’s father that got her a spot at her local city university through
his influence and he’s nowhere near Downer’s status – so thus yes it is
that easy!! Of course we who knew her, knew about this. But if it was
put out into the public they wouldn’t admit it in a million years!! It
was only a couple of years ago but it stuck in my head as I remember
thinking – wow, the joys of an influential and powerful family!!
Downer’s daughter “may” have earnt the position, but seriously readers
– wake the hell up – this is possible and it does happen, I’ve seen
it!! Having an influential family can help you in many areas in life.
Obviously the people that are so quick to defend this statement are
either clueless, or guilty of gaining the same sort of advantages we’re
talking about!! If the Downers are completely innocent as they claim,
no problemo – prove it!