Low farce in a deadpan tone

Whatever Kevin Rudd wanted to achieve at Friday’s Senate inquiry into media diversity, his critique of the news coverage of his successor as prime minister, Julia Gillard, left most of his former colleagues speechless. Only one, former communications minister Stephen Conroy, belled the cat, telling Sky News that Mr Rudd “lost credibility’’ with his argument.

Mr Rudd told the inquiry that News Corp, publisher of The Weekend Australian, had depicted Ms Gillard in a way that was “particularly venomous”. There was a dimension to Ms Gillard’s time in office, Mr Rudd claimed in his deadpan tone, “bordering on misogyny”.

As Mr Conroy pointed out, “many, many people” would say Mr Rudd himself was “disparaging” about Ms Gillard, after Labor dumped him and installed her in his place as prime minister in 2010. Those who remember vividly include many journalists familiar with his protracted campaign of vengeance against Ms Gillard as payback for the 2010 coup. As David Penberthy wrote in November last year, Mr Rudd “habitually referred to Australia’s first female prime minister as ‘that f..king bitch’ in obscenity-filled backgrounding calls to ­journalists and editors tearing her down”.

For those with three hours to spare on Friday morning, much of the hearing was bizarre. Readers of this newspaper who have followed our exclusive exposes of links between senior researchers at Australian universities and the Chinese Communist Party were left wondering about some of the interventions of Victorian Labor senator Kim Carr. The academics concerned are giving the CCP ­access to their technology and inventions, some of it funded by Australian taxpayers, where there is the risk the material could be used for military or intelligence purposes in China.

“I can see a disturbing pattern emerging of character assassination,” Senator Carr complained during evidence from News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller and News Corp group executive Campbell Reid. The senator tabled documents from organisations mentioned in the articles — which had included responses from the organisations identified. “This has all the hallmarks of McCarthyist smear,’’ Senator Carr claimed. “People have been vilified in your organisations, and I’m yet to see any apologies in your newspaper.” For what, precisely? Informing readers on an issue of serious national interest?