We have seen this very clearly recently over coverage about the origins of Covid-19 and the trial by media of actor Craig McLachlan at the hands of the ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald. Barry and his team of 10 producers and researchers have remained deliberately incurious about both.
This newspaper’s investigations editor, Sharri Markson, began reporting on the pandemic origins early last year for The Daily Telegraph and has continued to break world exclusives on crucial aspects of the story for this newspaper and Sky News. She has focused on the growing evidence and intelligence agency interest in the possibility the virus could have escaped, accidentally, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In May last year Media Watch compiled a detailed story debunking her story, ignoring her evidence and airing her critics. Barry pontificated that; “Markson should have told readers that almost every virus expert had dismissed the lab escape theory.”
But that would have been wrong. Barry wanted Markson to mislead audiences in order to suit his agenda.
His story noted prominently that then US President Donald Trump had amplified the lab leak theory, which seemed to be enough for Barry and the ABC to oppose it. Rather than investigate, they preferred to join the Chinese embassy in Canberra as being the most strident denunciators of the lab leak theory on our shores.
Fast forward a full year and even the SMH is now treating the lab leak theory as plausible. Its US correspondent Mathew Knott reported on the weekend that: “The lab leak theory, regarded as fringe just a few months ago, has rapidly become mainstream in the United States.” Knott said pressure was increasing on China to reveal more information about what happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Earlier this month 18 of the world’s leading virologists authored an article in Science magazine adding to the momentum on this issue. “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable,” they argued, demanding more research.
Yet Barry, Media Watch and the ABC remain silent, incurious and unapologetic. So, as it stands, on one of the most important stories of our time, their position is to condemn and mock the Australian journalist who has done most to advance reporting and public knowledge.
See what I mean by anti-journalism.
On the McLachlan issue, the ABC’s joint 2018 investigation with the SMH was exposed by the Channel 7 documentary, which presented the actor’s side of the story. The documentary aired segments of the ABC and SMH recordings which did not go to air.
These excerpts were damning; with reporters and producers urging alleged victims to use words like “predatory” and to blame “star power” for their reluctance to push back at the time. Even as one producer expressed concerns about “putting words into her mouth” the process went on. The alleged victims were offered “a department of lawyers” to encourage their co-operation and at least one was told about the program’s aim for McLachlan – “ultimately we want him out of his job.”
Most media seemed to ignore this aspect of the documentary, focusing instead on the personal pleas and trauma shared by McLachlan (he faced indecent assault charges and was acquitted). But when I ran the excerpts in Kenny on Media on Sky News last Friday the public response was immediate, with social media viewings escalating quickly (my editorial has had a million views on YouTube).
The ABC obviously became concerned and issued a statement on Sunday defending its journalism. It said Channel 7 had “selectively edited raw footage and used very brief grabs without full context from near the end of an almost hour-long interview” with one of the alleged victims.
“The unedited footage shows the interviewee was asked to repeat in a more succinct way statements she had already made on-camera,” said the ABC. “This is a normal television industry practice in some cases to ensure content is presented in a clear way for viewers.”
The ABC denies witness coaching. Well, there is an easy way to clear that up – the ABC could release all of the tapes (while protecting identities) and allow others to judge. Perhaps Barry and Media Watch might recommend such transparency.
But no, Barry and Media Watch have been almost silent on this story. Save for a lighthearted social media video, mocking the documentary and ignoring the revelations about the ABC and SMH tactics, Barry and Media Watch have ignored the McLachlan documentary.
Imagine this was the other way around, and the scandalous unaired video clips had come from a Channel 7 investigation and had been revealed by the ABC. Would Barry be interested in witness coaching and trial by media then?
We all know the answer. Which just goes to show what a jaundiced waste of taxpayers’ money Media Watch has become.
More Coverage
Judge urged to ‘punish’ Nine editors for alleged breach
The Federal Court has been urged to ‘punish’ a group of top journalists from Nine for revealing the names of people who complained to the ABC about its call to hire Antoinette Lattouf.
Lattouf went rogue, but real blame lies with ABC management
The ABC is not the platform for political activism. Full stop. End of story. But what does this whole sorry Lattouf saga say about the public broadcaster’s management?
The ABC’s Media Watch hosted by Paul Barry has become a program of anti-journalism. Barry – who is paid upwards of $200,000 a year by taxpayers for 15 minutes of television, 45 weeks per year – uses the position and the program to push his ideological agenda and attack journalists and journalism that does not toe his political line.