Rewarding rhetoric and applauding lies

TRUTH has suffered a major setback with the awarding of a 2008 John Curtin Prize for Journalism to Tasmanian polemicist Richard Flanagan.

The prize, one of the Victorian Premier's Literary Awards, went to Flanagan for a factually inaccurate ideological diatribe titled Gunns: Out of Control published in the left-wing Melbourne journal The Monthly. If the title rings a bell, it may be because it was mentioned in this space in June and August last year, first when then Federal Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Minister Eric Abetz critiqued it in a speech at the biennial conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and the New Zealand Institute of Forestry at Coffs Harbour on the NSW North Coast and noted it "tells more untruths than Pinocchio on a bad day"'. It made a second appearance when multi-millionaire Telstra director Geoffrey Cousins organised a mass letterbox drop in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of Wentworth in a particularly fruitless attempt to unseat the former Howard junior minister. Turnbull was re-elected with an increased majority. In his criticism of the article, Abetz listed some 70 "deliberate or inexcusably negligent errors of fact, selective citing of fact, or twisting of facts''. He said the writer made outrageous claims such as "the great majority of Tasmanians appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to old-growth logging'', and asked, if this was so, why had the Greens, the only party with a policy to end old-growth forestry in Tasmania, polled just 17 per cent of the vote at the 2006 state election, a decline on the previous election. He also cited the 2004 federal election, noting Labor, supported by the Greens, lost two House of Representative seats and a Senate seat, and the Greens' vote went backward, with policies aimed at shutting the Tasmanian forest industry. Indeed, it could now be added that Turnbull's opposition to elements of the pulp mill proposed by timber giant Gunns cost the Liberals its two Tasmanian seats, Bass and Braddon, in last November's election. Flanagan made a number of other claims that just don't stand up in any light, but that didn't matter to the judges of this "journalism'' prize because they found: "This is a wonderful piece of advocacy journalism with no pretence at 'balance'. It is very clear where Richard Flanagan stands on the issue of logging Tasmania's forests. But it is a fact-rich piece [they must be joking">, very well written and argued, full of great anecdotes and telling details. "Flanagan writes with controlled passion - even rage - but the reader does not feel in any way bullied by the writing. It is a great example of excellent magazine journalism.'' No, it is a great example of untruths, half-truths and misstatements put forward in a politically correct polemic that the judges, former Age editor Michael Gawenda, former Fairfax editorial executive Greg Hywood, and Richard Watts, the editor of Melbourne's weekly newspaper for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, apparently felt quite comfortable with. What a shameful example to set for young people eager to get into the media. The lesson clearly is don't let truth get in the way of your obsessions, ignore attempts at accuracy, feel the vibe, write whatever you like, and you might even land a job on a Fairfax newspaper or with the gay media where, if the performance of these senior former executives is to be believed, falsehoods and inaccuracies will be applauded so long as they support a particular political interest. Journalism used to be about who, what, where and when but this prize changes that old rule into whoever, whatever, wherever, whenever, and what does accuracy matter? Flanagan's article was also short-listed for the Alfred Deakin Prize for Essay Advancing Public Debate, but lost despite another panel of left-leaning judges finding that it presented "evidence with flair and passion''. "This essay demonstrates how courageous forensic exposure is essential for the workings of a plausible democracy, based on a fully informed electorate,'' they said. Fully informed? Who are they kidding? Flanagan didn't even acknowledge the most basic fact of relevance to any discussion of Tasmanian logging - that Tasmania's forests are managed under the National Forest Policy Statement implemented by the previous federal Labor government! In receiving the prize, Flanagan said little had changed since his article was first published last May, and that may be the most accurate remark he has made about the Tasmanian timber industry. His article is as fallacious as it was when it was first published, but the Victorian Government has seen fit to award the author a monetary prize. Journalistic standards have been king hit by those who should be defending them. Taxpayers should be clamouring for an explanation, and seekers of truth everywhere should be outraged.