The Australian is delighting in running a story about how a couple of Fairfax editors were out to get Hockey after having to apologise for errors in a previous story.
Two questions:
a. yeah, it's all fun reading, but I'd love to see emails that circulated within News Ltd papers during the Gillard era. Wouldn't mind betting that they would be the most incendiary since the Whitlam era, especially she got on the phone to them about the Milne article.
b. the defamation case (as far as I can tell) turns on the question of how literally readers take headlines, rather than headlines read with the article itself. Surely there is allowance for the fact that headlines routinely need explanation or elaboration in the body of the article? I wouldn't mind betting that if one took the literal approach that headlines alone convey the story, there would be hundreds of cases of defamation of Rudd/Gillard from the Daily Telegraph alone.
Hockey is a big, rich sook, and a failure as a Treasurer.
As a man who formerly had ambitions to be PM, he's probably the government's number one loser, and the defamation case indicates he's feeling it.
No comments:
Post a Comment