Stuart Littlemore sound like an opinionated, pompous git? I think it is a shame he has to sound like that, but I can understand why. It has nothing to do with his character. For all I know he might be a meek, self-effacing man in real life. But on television he cannot be like that.
(For the uninitiated, Littlemore presents Mediawatch, 15 minutes of ABC television that has journalists throughout Australia at the edge of their seats with delight at the pasting of disliked colleagues or fear of a pasting of themselves.)
In an age of concentrated media ownership where Packer Murdoch and three TV networks own virtually the lot, we need Littlemore and we could do with a few more of him. He is at his best when he highlights what he sees are journalists’ conflicts of interest: journalists’ whose writings co-incide with their employers’ interest or, worse, journalists who have direct interest in things they are plugging.
Last Monday, he got stuck into three writers on the Australian: Greg Sheridan, over a piece saying Indonesia is okay; Bryan Frith over a piece saying super-share schemes are okay and Paddy McGuinness over a piece saying smoking is okay. He then said Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Australian, has a business interest in all three things, the last because he is a director of Philip Morris.
Then (and this is when he sounds and looks most like the opinionated pompous git we have all come to love to hate) he concluded that in his opinion, it showed these three journalists were not behaving with independence but blowing their owners’ business trumpet.
Now, Littlemore is a Queen’s Counsel with an extensive knowledge of libel law. He well knows that to assert as fact that the three journalists had surrendered their independence to their master would be defamatory and could sound heavily in damages.
So clever Littlemore, QC, has wrapped it up as opinion so it will attract the defence of “”fair comment”. It is a difficult defence for ordinary mortals. The only penalty for Littlemore is that he has to look like an opinionated pompous git with a raised eyebrow to get away with it. Small price.
The annoying thing about it, is not that Littlemore has had a crack at some journos, far from it. Rather it is that it takes a QC on air to be able to be reasonably fearless about what he says, while the rest the masses and journalists run the risk of hugely expensive libel actions for saying what is tantamount to the same thing.
The real-life ordinary viewer (as distinct from law’s moronic hypothesis of an ordinary viewer) looking at Monday’s program would say: Littlemore got stuck into those journos for looking after Rupert’s business interests. Yet if you said it like that you could be sued.
It would be a better society if we did not have to go through the artful nonsense of crafting our speech to fit within the arcane and technical laws of “”fair comment”. It would also be a better society if saying a trivial thing like a journalist is doing his proprietor’s business bidding was not actionable. It should only be actionable if you assert, without reasonable grounds or making reasonable inquiry, that someone has committed a criminal act.
People are far too precious about what people say and write about them. We need more outspoken Stuart Littlemores on the airwaves, but they should not have to be QCs.
Another downside of Littlemore is that people can point to it and say: See, the libel law does not restrict free speech and good journalism. Littlemore manages all right. The trouble with this view is that Littlemore is not practicing journalism. He is more like a theatre, restaurant or book reviewer. Most of his fact base is presented to him on a platter in a public forum, like a play or a book, and he can get attack under the protection of fair comment.
Journalists and publishers working on stories about business, political and administrative misdeeds, however, do not get it so easy. They are required to prove every last point of what they say and print. Even if they make all reasonable inquiries, if the story turns out to be wrong through no fault of their own, they are liable. Even ordinary mugs on talk-back and in the letters column, who (without the benefit of Stuart’s legal training) tend to state their opinions as bald fact are required to prove the truth of their opinion.
The law should allow us all to be Stuart Littlemores without having to do a four-year degree course and more than a decade at the Bar.
As a footnote, I think Paddy McGuinness is perfectly capable of forming his own appalling opinions about smoking without any help from Rupert.