Grossly and Morally Improper. ( The political morals of a main-stream media journalist?).

One cannot but feel outrage at the presumption of certain main-stream media “celebrities” to inflict policy interpretation and opinions heavily biased toward their they of national citizenship or, as in most trashy newspapers and television; a foreign national. What kind of moral base do these journalists work from?..Is it their own , or is it the affected intrusion into national politics of foreign owners or corporations, too keen to inflict hardship, disharmony and division on the national psyche so they can advance their own corporate enterprises?

I would like to advance a couple of opinions of my own if I may..:

For those in Australia who may have heard of Don Dunstan, but are not deeply aware of his achievements, here is a bit of a run-down:

” On 2 June 1970 the ALP regained power in South Australia, beginning the so-called ‘ Dunstan Decade’ of political reform. Under Dunstan’s progressive leadership South Australia was transformed socially, legally, administratively and politically. His many reforms covered areas including Aboriginal land rights, consumer protection, education, housing, licensing laws, welfare and anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation He appointed the first Catholic Supreme Court Justice in the state’s history, and Australia’s first woman QC, Roma Mitchell, who later became Australia’s first woman Governor. He fought tirelessly for the principle of equal opportunity for women, with the result that by 1979, S.A. had more women employed and more women employed in the public sector than any other state.
The Dunstan Government was a world pioneer in the field of consumer protection and led the way for the nation. For the first time, statutory guarantees of quality and other protections were provided in consumer transactions. Consumer credit laws overcame many of the injustices of the old hire-purchase system and provided a fair legal structure for the protection of consumers. The used car industry was regulated and legal requirements and warranties were introduced into used car transactions. Similar protective provisions were introduced into a whole range of consumer transactions. Many of Dunstan’s innovations have since been incorporated into the Federal Trade Practices Act.” ( lost citation..but general info’ anyway)

So to say that Don Dunstan was a lead player in the modernisation of Aust’ politics AND a leader in fighting for equality and rights of all citizens is to understate the man’s tireless work for the people and the State. Yet this reformer was brought down politically and personally by a relentless, vicious campaign from the Murdoch media and the Adelaide Establishment (read ; LNP) of the time. His dismissal of then Police Commissioner : Harold Salisbury caused controversy. But the fact was that Salisbury had not only misled the govt’ AND through the Special Branch was also accumulatiing files on selected individuals because of their politics or public activities, and because he personally disagreed with their private and personal allegiances..there were files on gays and unionists and many Labor Party members..

” Salisbury was appointed commissioner of South Australian Police in July 1972 by the Australian Labor Party premier, Don Dunstan. To many it seemed a strange appointment for a progressive, reformist premier to have made. Holding conservative social values, Salisbury deplored permissive policies and social changes that he believed undermined valuable conventions and respect for authority. He publicly supported capital punishment, tough sentencing for law breakers, and corporal punishment in schools, and he opposed the liberalisation of drug laws. Privately, he rejected any religious belief. In contrast to his public image as an old-fashioned, hard-working police commissioner, some close associates regarded ‘Holiday Harold’ as a figurehead who delegated excessively.
On 17 January 1978 Dunstan dismissed Salisbury for ‘giving inaccurate information . . . to the Government’ and ‘having so misled the Government that wrong information was given to Parliament and the public’ (Advertiser, 18 January 1978, 1). This action followed an inquiry into the nature of files held by the police special branch. The inquiry concluded that many of the files related to matters, organisations, and persons that were not security risks, but to ‘political, trade union and other sensitive matters’; and that, despite the premier’s enquiries, the commissioner had not adequately informed him about the existence of these files (White 1977, 6, 67). Salisbury conceded that his answers to the government had been incomplete but argued that the police commissioner, though responsible to the government, was not subordinate to it but was responsible directly to the Queen or her representative in Australia” (Salisbury, Harold Hubert – 1915 – 1991) by John Summers.

Clearly, Salisbury perceived his position as a “law unto himself and the Crown” only…an untenable position in any govt’.

Dunstan died in 1999, driven from office by low journalism encouraged by the Murdoch media..many of the scurrilous rumours bore the hallmarks of unauthorised investigations that may or may not have been leaked to the Murdoch media by an obliging police operative..this cannot be confirmed, but going by the usual methodology of now known Murdoch media covert operations, we can at least hazard a guess. The start of many such political pogroms by Murdoch’s creatures throughout Australia..acting for their “handler” and against the interests of the people and the State..One has to question the moral impropriety of these employees, that they are prepared to act in such Machiavellian ways to keep in standing with their employer. How much further would they go? We saw how far they would lower the standard in the years of the Gillard govt’.

Three popular social reforming Labor Prime Ministers have notoriously been “hunted down for the kill” by the Murdoch media..: Don Dunstan, Gough Whitlam and Julia Gillard..Their policies directed at reforming and improving infrastructure, social welfare and equality for the Nation, were fiercely opposed by the conservative LNP opposition and the main-stream media..particularly the Murdoch media…Whitlam , in his tribute speech to Don Dunstan , reflecting on Dunstan’s own experiences with the Murdoch camp, was to say:

” During the Fifties Dunstan became friends with Adelaide News editor Rohan Rivett and the paper’s young proprietor Rupert Murdoch. During the bitter ALP/DLP split, Rivett and Murdoch invited the young Dunstan to the News office and urged him to defect to the DLP, promising favorable publicity. Dunstan later recalled:
“I looked at them in bemused horror, and said that they quite obviously didn’t know much about the principles or policies involved, the Labor Party and its organisation and support; and even more, they clearly didn’t know much about me.”
Relating this incident at the memorial tribute to Dunstan in 1999, Gough Whitlam wittily remarked that “Don and I must be the only political leaders in the English-speaking democracies to say ‘No’ to Rupert.”..” (

The above comment gives more than slight clue as to the desired direction promoted by the Murdoch press from even the earliest days..a direction ruthlessly pursued even till this day..That any journalist who joined the organisation from the time of 1970 onwards to claim they were not aware of what would be required of them in regards to political position and reporting style, has to be so stupid as to be unfit for the job or so much a liar as to be unfit for civil society!…The moral implications for running with such management policy would have to be addressed sooner or later by every new employee and either collude to join in voluntarily with the “witch-hunt” or to excuse themselves from such pusillanimous deeds and leave the company. Those who remained firmly embedded with the Murdoch media have to wear the badge of : “creature of convenience” for the Murdoch principles.

At this point we have the right to ask: What is the moral obligation of a citizen for their Nation?..
If it is to maintain an objective loyalty to one’s country and people above political and financial opportunity, then the Murdoch journalists would appear to have failed, and failed miserably. If we go back to the Dunstan / Whitlam / Gillard ministries and recall the headlines most bold that screamed out lies, rumour and innuendo , calling for dismissal and replacement of the Labor govt’s, the vilification through gossip and “scandal” rarely or obscurely apologised, that tore into the personal and private lives of those Premiers and Prime Ministers, we see a cabal of mean-spirited, miserable hacks of the lowest order of scribblers to ever have sold their soul to journalistic perdition..more than that, when we see vital physical infrastructure wasted, vital education changes flung aside, and vital disability and social programs defunded through sheer mongrel ideology, ragingly debased by a servile media, we see the true physical and moral degradation of journalism in Australia.

Perhaps those journalists feel obliged to demand they be allowed to express “their opinions” at will, even if it be on the media platform of a foreign national, at that foreign national’s expense and even more coincidentally ; closely aligned with that media baron’s own wishes and ideology WHILE being paid for their “journalistic skills” by that same foreign media citizen..That being the case, surely then WE; the citizen body who has to tolerate the result of such demoralising, destabilising and sabotage of our society and it’s infrastructure could be equally allowed the right to witness these “journalists” defend any charges of national betrayal brought against them and if found guilty, allow ourselves, for just a moment, a imagined scenario of “delivered justice” much in the manner of how traitors in past ages were dealt with..imagine for just a moment!

The cruel demands of a tyrannical media baron, a foreign national who has infiltrated, privately investigated, debased and in many cases destroyed democratically elected people and governments across one island, two continents and three great countries, using his perverted creatures who have signed their lives and careers to such vile causation, demands an intense examination by tribunal or Royal Commission into whether charges of treason are manifest in the actions of these oleaginous subordinates..and such investigation MUST be carried out with extreme prejudice!

6 thoughts on “Grossly and Morally Improper. ( The political morals of a main-stream media journalist?).

  1. You have have hit on to the preferred Tory weapon whenever they perceive a real threat. They do reserve their most vicious and personal attacks for those who are clearly the greatest threat.

    You have cited the malicious attacks on Dunstan, Whitlam and Gillard. Others, too, such as Lionel Murphy, were subject to the same unrelenting personal attacks, which continued long after they’d left politics. Murphy was a great reformist figure, albeit with some curious shadowy personal activities, someone whom I’d liken to Lloyd George. A person much more committed to the public good than he ever was to personal enrichment. Chifley and Curtin copped a little, although that mostly came from the Lang forces (who were arguably the Rudd factor at the time), but escaped a little because of their heroic wartime leadership at a time of our greatest peril. The banks went after Chif post-war as he sought to curtail their stranglehold.

    It is interesting that these attacks are much less severe on those they recognise (then or later) as those fitting in with the status quo. Thus Hawke got off pretty lightly, albeit he remained a true Labor man. Keating less so, because like Bill Clinton, he ran rings around them economically killing them in their own rhetoric. They went after him with the piggery beat-up, but didn’t have much.

    I’ve traced this style of Tory smear and attack at least as far as E G Theodore and the Queensland Nationalists smearing of him over the Mungano “scandal” for which he was never charged. Wiki has a bio

    His economic aims, if he’d had the proper chance, might just have spared us from the miserable suffering of the Great Depression. Of course he might still have been frustrated by the Tory Senate, the banks and the High Court, but it would have been a wonderful boost to public morale to get it all working in the public interest. As it was we had to wait another decade before Curtin and Chifley, via the Wartime emergencies, took us there.

    Theodore was at least spared post-retirement attacks. It probably helped having Frank Packer as a business partner.


    1. Yes..there were others..many others smeared with the Murdoch shitstirring..but I could not possibly fit them all in the piece..You have a good handle on the issue..pity I don’t have a comment space under the articles for such commentry..I suppose I could re-arrange the site, but it just gets too complicated..and at the moment I have lost my computer to the using my partners…Bloody good post though, don…It would have been better if I was still posting at The Pub and we could continue the public conversation.but I am afraid those days are’s all cute kittens and cut and paste there now..


    1. Ta, Miriam…but I believe I have..a long while back, Miriam…But that’s the problem with many articles on blogs..not many people REALLY read them…even LESS for mine now!!…ooooooo..I’m a baaaad boy!

      Mir-i-am…: Mirriyam (phonetic pronunciation)..that’s an interesting word in itself just for the sound it makes..I like the “sound” of certain words…


    2. Hmm..just checked on the “all posts search” on The AIMN and it wasn’t found…maybe I didn’t post it…hmmmm…perhaps it was on another blog that I used to frequent….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s