In the early 1980s it seemed that everyone in Sydney had a story about Peter Abeles and corruption.

After the National Times named Costigan’s ‘Goanna’ as Kerry Packer a friend of mine who worked in TNT and the TWU claimed that the fact Abeles was never named in the media was proof of how effectively he deployed bribery and threats.

But Abeles is now dead. He cannot bring defamation suits. Yet the Sydney media has still kept mum on his decades of corruption and criminality.

So its not the defamation laws that stops the Aus media from doing its job. Its something even less savoury.

Stephen Mayne is the exception that proves the rule. He was successfully sued - by an Australian journalist of course - but continued to stick his neck out until someone came along with a big cheque and a suggestion that he should retire. Sort of ‘cash for no comment’. He wasn’t gagged by an unhappy judge but by a happy bank manager.

Funny about the timing too. Crikey was the only one reporting on the way Fairfax editors (particularly Michael Gawenda) had been heavied by the ownership to refuse to back the ALP in the last Federal election. Not even MediaWatch would touch the story. And who bought Crikey? A former Fairfax editor.

Apart from Antony’s excellent - if belated - piece in Online Opinion there are still no Australian journos with the guts to touch that story, even though it goes right to the heart of the standard of journalism in this country.

Oh well, the next time you hear a Fairfax journo demanding support for their ‘independent’ outlet against weakened cross-media ownership laws and the depredations of Rupert Murdoch you can just have a little laugh and send them on their way.

While there is probably *some* truth to the suggestion that the media is sometimes intimidated by defamation laws I think that they are all too often used as a figleaf by the press for their own lack of courage in the face of their corporate paymasters and political chookfeeders.

The Lange case established a solid precedent for qualified privilege as a defence against defamation when reporting in good faith on matters of public interest. But rather than use that precedent - or try to build on it to include public figures in business and the media as well as politics - the Aus media have become even more sycophantic and cowardly in their reporting.

When they do show a bit of ‘courage’ - by attacking the powerless, such as dead victims of police shootings or chases, black bureaucrats, working class Muslims, etc - the press also invoke defamation laws as justification for their own bastardry (i.e. “if the reporting was unfair or untrue they can sue us”). As John Marsden discovered, even the most legally empowered members of our society seeking redress for an open and shut case of false reporting face an uphill battle trying to sue the media (he was eventually successful - at great personal cost).

If the media is really concerned about defamation laws, why don’t they do something about them. They are in an excellent position to seek public support for law reform and they could also come together to mount test cases to extend the Lange decision.

I think I know why. Because the defamation laws are just a too convenient excuse for covering up their own failures as journalists.

There’s a team of mice over at Surfdom doing the same thing. Beaten senseless in every encounter, on they trundle like robots, doing their unquestioning duty, unnoticed by their principals but sufficiently warmed by belonging to continue cheerfully on.

I don’t know whether there’s several of you anonymii, or if it’s just the one. It’s impossible to tell.

“Public” broadcasting is nothing more than taxpayer-financed propaganda, and is a holdover from the Soviet Union.