David Penberthy: Why K-Rudd is the real ‘cancer on democracy’

AS a newspaper editor, I knew Rudd very well. It’s time to inject some truth into his recent statements about media, and remind him of the things he did to destroy Labor, writes David Penberthy.

FORMER prime minister Kevin Rudd this week called for a royal commission into the conduct of media proprietor Rupert Murdoch, describing him as a “cancer on Australian democracy.”

Mr Rudd’s assertion is Mr Murdoch is a partisan activist who favours his mates on the conservative side of politics. Mr Rudd believes Mr ­Murdoch instructs his editors to court and champion ­conservatives and tear down progressives.

As editor of a Murdoch newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, I came to know Mr Rudd well, ahead of his seizure of the Labor leadership from Kim Beazley and his victory in 2007.

I also know Mr Murdoch well from many one-on-one meetings with him as an editor, when to borrow a phrase from his former UK media boss Les Hinton, he would arrive in our newsroom every few months “like a passing comet” to laud and/or lambaste my efforts running his newspaper.

This makes me well-placed to inject truth and context into Mr Rudd’s latest statements.

From all my dealings with Mr Murdoch over the years I would summarise his views as follows. He believes in reward for effort, free trade, supports immigration but wants migrants to embrace our values, abhors bludgers, thinks we all pay too much tax and, crucially, regards most politicians as a total pain in the arse.

Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd greeting voters in Townsville. He was also fond of courting media support. (Pic: Cathy O’Toole)

These views put him in the same category as pretty much everybody.

When it comes to Mr Rudd and News Corporation, the courtship was entirely a one-way thing. More than any politician I have known, Mr Rudd was desperate to secure perceived endorsement from our company. His desire to ingratiate himself was incessant.

My first encounter with the Rudd juggernaut involved his NSW numbers man, former NSW Labor secretary Mark Arbib. Over pasta at a cheap and cheerful restaurant, Mr Arbib asked point-blank if The Daily Telegraph would support Mr Rudd as leader if he knocked off Mr Beazley.

I was stunned by the candid nature of the question and said it wasn’t up to me, but that we would treat him fairly.

When Mr Rudd did become leader, he sought a meeting with Mr Murdoch at his New York office. Mr Rudd’s people were so giddy with excitement they leaked details to TV crews so he could be filmed with Mr Murdoch leaving News Corp HQ.

In another attempt to mix with the big boys, Mr Rudd made the fatal error of going drink-for-drink with the New York Post’s Australian editor, Col Allan, at a Manhattan strip club. When that story broke — a legitimate one — it did no damage to Mr Rudd, rather suggested this nerdy bureaucrat had a pulse after all.

Mr Rudd’s biggest blow-up with News ahead of the 2007 election came when The Sunday Telegraph broke the so-called “Sunrise Scandal”, where Mr Rudd’s office had been warned Channel 7’s plans to hold a staged Dawn Service risked ­offending veterans.

Mr Rudd rang me that day, incandescent, saying he had been “f … ed up the arse by every Sunday paper in the country.” I reminded him I didn’t edit a Sunday paper but with trademark bombastic overreach Mr Rudd demanded the sacking of The Sunday Telegraph editor, only to abandon the silly ultimatum when it emerged the story was 100 per cent true.

Despite his statements about media, Kevin Rudd enjoyed support from The Daily Telegraph during the 2007 federal election. (Pic: Kym Smith)

Disgusted at his attempt to sack a colleague for publishing the truth, I penned a brotherly text message to my fellow editor saying I was “smashing the little xxxx” on my front page the next day. In what can be described by way of understatement as an awkward mix-up, I sent the text to Mr Rudd.

Despite these dramas, most of Mr Murdoch’s Australian ­titles ran election editorials supporting Rudd.

We did so not out of any dislike for John Howard, rather a sense that our readers had quietly abandoned him. Rudd, it was believed — laughably in hindsight — was a level-headed bloke who would provide stable government.

This editorial position was a telling example of newspapers following rather than leading their readers.

Indeed, Murdoch papers ­almost always editorialise in favour of the party that wins the election, because they listen to their readers.

Election editorials are controversial things. Some readers regard them as impertinent. The argument for running them is that newspapers are committed to representing the interests of their readers, and at election time feel duty-bound to make a call as to which party is best equipped to do the same. Over the years I have commissioned and written pro-Liberal and pro-Labor editorials in roughly equal number.

I remember Mr Murdoch coming into my office one evening ahead of the 2007 poll. On the TV in the background, John Howard was giving a disastrous interview vowing to quit half way through the term if re-elected, making way for Peter Costello.

John Howard’s election blunders in 2007 meant The Daily Telegraph editorialised against him, in line with reader sentiment. (Pic: Marsden Ross)

Rather than telling me who to back, Mr Murdoch simply asked who I was going to endorse in the election editorial. Rudd, I said, stating my reasons.

“Yeah, it’s a bit of a mess for Howard, isn’t it?’ Mr Murdoch said, signalling at the TV. “You can’t run promising to quit. Hopefully the new guy doesn’t stuff things up.”

That was the full extent of the chat.

Even though we editorialised against Mr Howard, I wrote a personal letter to him after the election congratulating him on his career. He graciously replied and we caught up for a nice lunch a few months later.

Mr Howard was, and is, a well-adjusted bloke who gets how politics and media works.

Contrast that with Mr Rudd, whose latest spray is merely another manifestation of his embittered nature.

If you’re looking for cancers on democracy, two stand out — the party room coup that knocked off Rudd in 2010, and Rudd’s subsequent treachery in leaking against Julia Gillard throughout the campaign. These two things did more to destroy Labor than any imagined Murdoch conspiracy ever could.

@penbo

Originally published as David Penberthy: Why K-Rudd is the real ‘cancer on democracy’