False Australian article leaves Gillard seeing red

[Matilda]

Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Friction between the Murdoch press and the Federal Government has escalated in the wake of an incorrect article about Prime Minister Julia Gillard published in yesterday's Australian newspaper.

The article led to an embarrassing apology from the newspaper, which acknowledged that not only were allegations about Ms Gillard "untrue" but that no attempt had been made to contact her for comment before publication.

The article, written by journalist Glenn Milne - but later repudiated by the newspaper - claimed Ms Gillard had been unknowingly implicated in a "major union fraud" while she was working as a lawyer in Melbourne before she entered parliament.



Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-30/gillard-angry-ove...

---

Anyone who works for Murdoch is, by definition, a slug, and Glenn Milne is one of the worst of the Murdoch sleazebags.
A drunken fool whose foot is forever in his mouth.

I hope the demise of the Murdoch empire is not too far away - can't come soon enough for me.

[SwissTony]

1. Glenn Milne makes Andrew Bolt look half-reasonable. nt.

[No Elephants]

2. I've been "contacted" by the media prior to publication more than once.

Just to be clear, I was contacted because someone referred the media to me repeatedly, not because I myself was alleged to have done something wrong.

The media calls without notice. Unless you happen, by sheer luck, to be available when the media calls, the media leaves a message, maybe accompanied by a note that they need to hear back from you in a half hour or so.

If you are away or busy or whatever, the article goes forward within a very short time without your comment, but does say you did not return the media's calls. That may sound as though you purposely did not return the calls.

If you do happen to be are reached, you get a verbal alleged summary of the alleged charge and are asked for a response. You have no guaranty that the summary is all inclusive or accurate. No one faxes you a draft of the story or anything like that.

If the alleged charges seems totally fabricated, about all you can say is that it is wholly without foundation. Then, unless the reporter's source of the story was a public figure, you expose yourself to a libel suit.

So, even an attempt to reach someone for comment is kind of loaded in favor of the accuser.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. +1,000