crime and publicity

Following the inquiry into the death of prisoner Simon Rochford, Deputy State Coroner Evelyn Vicker recommend legislation to allow police to suppress information that might “compromise an investigation into a serious offence.”

Western Australia’s new new Attorney-General Christian Porter (the guy who told The Australian that addressing the state’s indigenous prison rate was not high on his agenda) apparently thinks this recommendation is “sensible and deserves consideration”.

Erm… giving the police MORE powers to keep stuff OUT of the press when on most occasions they seem to love PUTTING IT THERE THEMSELVES seems a little strange.

Rochford’s death was yet another chapter in the legal saga surrounding the 1994 murder of Pamela Lawrence. Andrew Mallard’s conviction for the murder was quashed by the High Court in 2005 after he had spent over a decade in jail. The Corruption and Crime Commish made findings of misconduct against police and prosecutors involved in the case. A cold case review discovered a previously unidentified palm print from the crime scene which was traced back to  Rochford … who happened to be serving time for the murder of his girlfriend.

Deputy Coroner Vicker found that the ABC television news report naming Rochford as the new suspect in the high-profile murder case “precipitated” his decision to commit suicide just hours after he saw the news.

Oops.

Last week, The Australian‘s Debbie Guest pointed out that:

The calls for new police powers follow a year of scrutiny of Perth media, including a raid on the Sunday Times newspaper by armed police in an attempt to find the source of a story that embarrassed the previous Carpenter government. [link]

Yeah, News Ltd is still pissed about that one. But I don’t think this is about the media.

Last year I wrote on my own blog about how the cops effed up in naming Supreme Court Registrar Corryn Rayney’s “estranged” husband the “prime suspect” in her murder yet never charged him. Mr Rayney, who’s a FRICKING BARRISTER, recently sued the coppers and the government for defamation.

An article on PerthNow reporting that police revealed info about an item found at the site in King’s Park where Registrar Rayney’s body was found, noted:

Since the defamation writ was issued last month, police have been reluctant to comment on any aspect of the Rayney case.

But wait… now the government wants to give the cops the powers to “suppress information”?

You’ve gotta be kidding me, Christian Porter — the boys in blue can’t keep their OWN mouths shut, dontcha think you need to work on that before fannying about with “suppression” laws?

And, um, didn’t they keep quiet about the tape of Jane or Sarah talking to some random at The Claremont on the night they went missing for twelve years and then got bitch-slapped about that?

This is not about the media going over the line. This is about the cops making value judgments about things when it suits them, and then blaming the mean, nasty media when the shit hits the fan.

Now, Labor’s shadow Attorney-General McGinty says nasty suppression legislation could stifle information which should be made public (well spotted, Captain Duh):

“I have reservations about the wisdom of yet further suppression orders of information [that] should be in the public arena,” he said.

“I think on balance that the public interest is best served by not having so many prohibitions on the public being given the information upon which they can make their judgements.” [link]

Ok, look, I love the dude (especially for everything he did for ending discrimination against Teh Gays in WAys, and stuff) and he’s right, there’s no point putting more powers in the cop’s hands, but in my humble opinion, Jimmy doesn’t actually get the point either.

I just wonder… Will laws ban giving info to the jurors who are supposed to make the judgments? Because until they are unable to lie their way out of jury duty, no member of the public should be making judgements about anyone’s criminal liability.

They should get back to washing their cars on the lawns and shopping at Bunnings and doing those other things all good Sandgropers do. Ok?

While the police are investigating stuff, the public should have no right to information unless aforementioned public can help. The public ‘making judgements’ about on-going investigations, where no charges have been laid and no case against a person has been made in a court of law, has got squat to do with it.

Everyone got that? Good.

But Jimmy’s right on the essential bit: banning the media from talking about criminal investigations like that isn’t the solution.

Sue Short, the ABC reporter who broke the story, said she wouldn’t have named Rochford if she’d “been given a good reason” and call me naïve but I would like to think journos still have the ethics and/or values that would have them hold off on a story if it would do more harm than good to an on-going investigation.

Legislators don’t need to create powers that let the police keep the media quiet, they need to get the police to do their job, and give them proper media training while they’re at it.

The pollies should get back to something they can actually fix instead of wasting time ranting on about unnecessary and draconian “suppression” laws.

I mean, honestly. What do they think they’re running? Notre Dame Uni? Psh.

Ooh goody! My fave!! Censoring anti-censorship material!

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck… It may well be a Peking duck. Or Beijing duck, as we say these days.

So says the ABC’s Media Watch on the issue of Chanel 7’s decision to not play GetUp’s ad about Tibet during the opening of that sporty-gathering-thingymibob on Friday night.

As mentioned here on 08-08-08, there was some warning that this would happen.

Having had some personal experience with people refusing to openly discuss censorship issues, you may be able to guess where I stand on this matter.

What about you? I encourage youse all to check out the Media Watch segment on it and come back to discuss.

080808

Today is going to be a good day.

Just quickly, though, I got this email from GetUp and I wanted to share…

Dear Sunili,

If you watched the news last night, you would have seen the lead story – a new GetUp TV ad has hit the headlines as Kevin Rudd arrives at the Beijing Olympics, urging him to speak out on Tibet.

The ad, made with the Australia Tibet Council, is going to air either side of the Opening Ceremony, click here to watch it:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/OlympicSilenceIsNotGolden

We sent the PM a copy of the ad, and he has pledged to raise human rights issues in Beijing. We know this sort of diplomacy works – only last week the PM condemned the media censorship around the Olympics – and the Chinese Government eased the restrictions.

But there is one hurdle left to clear – the Seven Network, in response to the media interest our ad has generated is now denying the fact that we’ve booked the ad space. Unfortunately for them we have on our desks a confirmed booking sheet suggesting otherwise!

Whether or not Channel 7 decide to uphold the values of free speech, you can watch the ad for yourself here:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/OlympicSilenceIsNotGolden

It’s vital that after the Olympics the world does not ‘switch off’ on Tibet – that’s why we’re planning more ads for the closing ceremony and beyond. Stay tuned for opportunities to help get the message out soon.

Thanks,
The GetUp team

PS – Let us know what you think about the Tibet issue and free speech on our blog.

Iiiiiiiinteresting.  WTF is up with that, Channel 7?

I’m boycotting the Olympics, btw, just ’cause I like to be fussy and shit. I was gonna go the the gyme tonight, but they’re all Olymaniacal over there at the moment, and no doubt all the fancy little treadmill TVs will be on the ‘Lympics, so I will sit at home all peacefully and read my Dali Lama book or sommink.

The Perils of Politically un-Popular Publication

Hahaha so turns out the administration of my un-beloved Noter Dayme has more in common with dictatorial regimes than previously thought. As reported by news.com.au (the Woman’s Day of online “news”):

The closure of Moskovski Korrespondent, whose editor Grigori Nekhoroshev was forced to resign, was a sharp reminder of the perils of invoking Kremlin displeasure.

…

I thought we should run the story to help break the taboo,” said Nekhoroshev. He paid a swift penalty for his daring: the paper, owned by Alexander Lebedev, the billionaire tycoon, ceased publication immediately.

Its parent firm blamed “costs” and “conceptual disagreements with the newsroom” but insisted in a statement that “this has nothing to do with politics and is solely a business decision”.

Hrm, why does that sound so familiar? Because those Krazy Kats at Kremlin use the same lines to try and shut down press outlets for which they have no care as the Student Life Office gang!

Bless!

Update 22/4:
“So, the Uni learned it’s media-censorship tactics from the Kremlin?” a friend asked at dinner last night. “No,” replied Matt, “The Kremlin learned it’s media-censorship tactics from the Uni. Who’d’ve thunk it, eh?”