The Rules are Different if You’re News Corp…

This week, documents were leaked to Crikey regarding the sales and earnings of News Corporation’s Australian arm, News Corp Australia. It turns out that News Corp’s earnings from papers, like The Australian fell quite a lot – about $27 million –  back in the 2012-13 financial year.

If you remember back in November, News Corp’s papers released the salaries of ABC presenters and staff. The ABC was justifiably annoyed, and it was pointed out that commercial presenters earn at least three times more as their ABC counterparts (You can read my post/rant about it here). So, you’d think that when something similar happened to News Corp this week, they might be justifiably annoyed about private, internal information being broadcast and get on with their lives.

But, no.

Crikey was threatened with legal action by News Corp for releasing the information and, in the end, agreed not to reveal anything else and destroy the documents they had (ABC News story here).

I am in no way condoning the release of private, internal documents relating to the finances of a company, regardless of the “it’s in the public interest” argument, but that isn’t the point of this post. My issue is that News Corp is more than happy to release leaked information about its rivals, but when these rivals do the same to them, they call the lawyers and threaten legal action. It’s massively hypocritical.

When the ABC salary figures were released by News Corp, the ABC’s Managing Director, Mark Scott, heavily criticised the organisation, and had some justifiably annoyed comments to make. News Corp should never have released the figures, which were private, internal documents that breached the privacy of not only the ABC but its employees. The ABC didn’t threaten legal action straight away, and in the end, they never did. Had they decided to call in the lawyers, News Corp would have been even more critical.

It seems different rules apply if you’re News Corp. They’re allowed release leaked, private information about their rivals and get away with it, while everyone else has to leave them alone. They are allowed to complain about and be critical of their rivals, like Fairfax and the ABC, but no one can be critical about them. They can tell the public that the ABC is biased to the left (progressive) side of politics, simply by misconstruing basic facts about the ABC.

There shouldn’t be a double standard in Australian media, dictated by one media outlet that thinks it is above all others. I would understand News Corp crying foul about Crikey’s revelation – had they not done something similar to the ABC last year. It shows that they can dish it out, but can’t take it: a massively hypocritical and incredibly dangerous position that makes it OK for News Corp to do what they want, no matter the cost.

An Open Letter to Joe Hildebrand

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488242408912465920

Joe Hildebrand you should be ashamed. It may have been humourous to you, but it wasn’t funny to most people.

You may have attempted an apology too:

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488259629655158784

Regardless of whether or not we suspected Ian Thorpe was gay, comments like that really aren’t appropriate. There are people who struggle for years and even decades coming to terms with their sexuality and for you to go around saying “Well duh!” doesn’t help. We never “knew” that Thorpe was gay. At best, we suspected and hypothesised and we could have been so, so wrong. We all live on the same planet, and while most of us may have suspected at one point or another, it’s up to Thorpe to tell us his sexuality, not us to label him. Just as much as it’s up to you to identify the way you wish and not have the general public decide for you.

https://twitter.com/Joe_Hildebrand/status/488276823126441984

You really don’t get it. It has nothing to do with how  “good it was that Thorpey came out”, although it is good that he did. It has to do with the fact that you don’t seem to understand the struggles that some go through coming out, something that only those who have been through that struggle will understand. Admittedly, I’m straight and haven’t been through those struggles, but at least I know they exist, have sympathy for those struggling and can acknowledge that some people never overcome their struggle and tragically end their lives. LGBTQI youth are six times more likely to attempt suicide and to know that someone as prominent as Ian Thorpe has gone through a similar struggle to come to terms with his sexuality will undoubtedly help them.

Comments like the ones you made are part of the problem. The people calling you out are trying to make you realise that, even if they are calling you an idiot, because you should know better.

The Taxpayer Money Saga

i like this new notion where making an inappropriate expense claim is just fine, so long as you pay it back when sprung.

— Jonathan Green (@GreenJ) October 7, 2013

so you know, i can steal cars, and if i get away with it fine. if i don’t i just hand the car back and no harm done.

— Jonathan Green (@GreenJ) October 7, 2013

That’s the ABC Online editor and radio presenter Jonathan Green’s take on this taxpayer money claiming scandal thing.

I don’t know what to call it. Scandal? Saga? Thing? Taxpayer-Money-Gate?

But Jonathan Green’s comment, using the stealing of a car, simplifies it into a few simple steps, which I have listed below.

1. Go to a wedding or on an equally dubious “work trip”.
2. Claim taxpayer money on transport, accommodation, food or all the above and pray you get away with it.
3. Once caught, pay it back, saying you were always intending to, because you are an honest person.
4. In interviews, blame the fact that regulations are very vague.

While I don’t think anyone stole cars, and nor should anyone take Jonathan Green’s suggestion seriously, it is a little concerning that this is going on.

First, what are the entitlements for?

Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 allows certain travel and accommodation to be reimbursed if it is related to ‘parliamentary or electorate business’.

That’s what it says on the Parliament House website. It also tells you the four reasons you can claim for overseas travel (N.B. I have cut out the additional explanations from the site):

1. Travel as a member of a Parliamentary Delegation, within a program approved for each calendar year by the Prime Minister.

2. Travel overseas for the purpose of undertaking studies and investigations of matters related to their duties and responsibilities as a member of parliament.

3. Representational overseas travel for parliamentarians who, with the approval of the Prime Minister, are representing Australia, a Minister, or the Government overseas.

4. Travel overseas on official business for Ministers as approved by the Prime Minister.

So, if you are going to a trade summit or the UN or something along those lines, then the claims for accommodation and travel are completely legitimate. I can totally understand the claiming of tax payer’s money if the politician is doing their job (for some that term is also ambiguous).

Not only are people claiming for weddings, but Tony Abbott has also claimed money for travel to Iron Man competitions, in particular one in the electorate of Port Macquarie, which he said was legitimate because back then the seat was “at the time, marginal”. He also claimed travel for his charity ride called the ‘Pollie Pedal’. He says he isn’t going to pay it back, and if he is travelling in his capacity (as in not on holiday, one hopes) he’ll claim the allowance.

I’m sorry Mr Abbott, but if going to sporting events and charity events, whether they are in a marginal seat or not, are “duties and responsibilities as a member of parliament” then I must be living on another planet. How is being in an Iron Man contest or a triathlon a responsibility as an MP?

I wonder if he’ll answer that question. Probably not.

Oh well, at least he’s paying some of it back. Which, if we are being honest is what Peter Slipper said he’d do about those dodgy CabCharge claims. But that doesn’t seem to be an issue, despite the fact the Mr Slipper is facing the courts over it, while Abbott is just paying some of the money back.

I don’t think we’ve seen the end of this.