Judging a book by its cover-up

GLARING omissions mean Chris Masters' book Jonestown must be disqualified from the NSW Premier's Literary Prize immediately.

GLARING omissions mean Chris Masters' book Jonestown must be disqualified from the NSW Premier's Literary Prize immediately.

INVESTIGATIVE reporter Chris Masters' attack on 2GB's top-rating morning radio broadcaster Alan Jones was shortlisted a fortnight ago by judges of the NSW Premier's Literary Prize for the $20,000 Douglas Stewart Prize for non-fiction. In their citation, the judges said three qualities made Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones (Allen & Unwin) an outstanding book: depth of research, fluency of narrative and professional engagement. Curiously Allen & Unwin, which submitted the book for the award, failed to tell the judges that at the time of its submission the book was the subject of litigation, nor did it subsequently inform the judges there were errors of fact, not even when a settlement was reached in recent days. Masters told me yesterday that "essentially" he was responsible for the research though he had ``to some degree'' drawn upon work done for an earlier ABC documentary. A principal researcher for that work was Morag Ramsay, wife of 2UE's little-rating morning radio co-host Mike Carlton. Carlton, who struggles along with the assistance of rugby relic Peter FitzSimons, is a relentless critic of Jones and his highly successful program, and author of numerous gutter attacks on the broadcaster - including references to Jones' alleged sexuality. The ABC, which initially commissioned Masters' book, dumped it last July after a report indicated known costs prior to publication, and the likely costs following publication, placed its viability in doubt. Acting ABC managing director Murray Green told staff that "legal advice is that unrecoverable post-publication legal expenses could amount to several hundred thousand dollars. This is regardless of confidence in the strength of the manuscript." Green was responding to trenchant criticism of the ABC's decision to drop the deal from the usual gaggle of left-aligned voices within and without the ABC, including its Media Watch program, which claimed the board had received advice the biography was legally defensible against defamation proceedings, and a former Media Watch host David Marr, one of the shriller anti-establishment voices at Fairfax. The controversy ensured the book would find a market with a new publisher but it carried with it the baggage the ABC's advice had foreshadowed. It was the subject of litigation and the publishers have now agreed to at least one confidential settlement. Questions however remain. Why was the book accepted or permitted to remain an entrant for the NSW Premier's Literary Award after it was been publicly revealed last year to be the subject of litigation? Further, why did the publishers or the author never inform the judges that there was a problem with the book? Insiders on the judging panel say the question of litigation was never raised, yet the topic was widely canvassed at the time and would have been familiar to anyone of any statue in the publishing world. While it is true the judges listed are largely academics, it would seem improbable those involved in judging a non-fiction category would not make elemental inquiries about such a controversial book - but that seems to have been the case. How else could the book have been recognised for its "depth of research" when it contained an error or inaccuracy warranting a confidential settlement and an apology? Masters says that making a case the book was badly researched would be unfair to him, but surely it is the judges who have been treated unfairly by being kept in the dark? Masters told me there are errors in the book which he would be happy to correct. Well and good, but should not the judges have also been told this? As it happens, the publishers and their lawyers, Freehills, inadvertently alerted me to the ongoing litigation and subsequent settlement with their ill-conceived attempts to stonewall inquiries and threats to abort the settlement process should news of the confidential negotiations be published. How embarrassing for an investigative reporter like Masters to be associated with a law firm that found it necessary to threaten and bully representatives of the subject of the settlement with the warning that my knowledge "also has the potential to be counter-productive for your client to achieving any settlement". When will these jumped-up little article clerks realise such menaces are a tonic to those not besotted by the antics of the laughable legal community? Unfortunately for Masters, the decision by his publishers to enter his book for the award without alerting the judges to its problems, or keeping them abreast of the negotiations, now make the judges' laudatory remarks look absolutely risible and condemns the judges to be included in the coterie of those who take an irrational set against the broadcaster. The author should have demanded his publishers adhere to the same standards he claims for himself. As it stands, they can easily be accused of the lack of transparency and manipulative practices of which Jones is accused. As their claim of finding merit in the research no longer applies, the judges of the award should immediately disqualify Masters' book, if he or the publishers do not apologise for the egregious non-disclosure and withdraw it.