Sep 18, 2013

‘Flawed and illogical’: Age ed blasts Press Council cardigan-wearers

The Australian Press Council found The Age breached reporting guidelines in its reporting on a union scandal. But editor-at-large Mark Baker is not taking the verdict lying down.

Matthew Knott

Former Crikey media reporter


The Age's editor-at-large, Mark Baker, has rejected an adverse Australian Press Council ruling on his reporting on the Australian Workers Union slush fund affair as "flawed and illogical". In an adjudication published in Fairfax newspapers yesterday, the Press Council found Baker erred by not contacting Slater & Gordon for comment on serious allegations. Baker maintains the public interest in publishing the story -- a "deeply embarrassing" one for then-prime minister Julia Gillard -- meant he did not need to ask Slater & Gordon for comment on claims it was stalling on requests to release files. "The Slater & Gordon complaint was vigorously rejected by The Age and this finding is flawed and illogical -- like so much of the work of the Press Council," Baker told Crikey. "While the Council prohibits reporting of its meandering deliberations, suffice to say it has taken almost a year for them to conclude this relatively trivial matter." Baker added: "The council would be greatly improved if they banned people with a preference for cardigans and twin-sets from membership." Baker contacted Crikey in response to a brief report on the Press Council verdict published in yesterday's edition of Crikey headlined "Baker shamed". "Be assured I feel not the slightest shame about my reporting of these matters," Baker said in a statement (read it in full here). "Indeed, I am proud of my work last year exposing aspects of this still unresolved scandal."

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

10 thoughts on “‘Flawed and illogical’: Age ed blasts Press Council cardigan-wearers

  1. bushby jane

    I was pleased that Mark Baker was slapped on the wrist. His boring pursuit of Julia Gillard at that time didn’t have any new info to warrant continually write page after page of repetitive innuendo. Bernard Keane seemed to be the only journalist interested in picking him about it. Mark Baker should find another job in my book, perhaps with Rupert…

  2. CML

    Quite right bj. It seems to be an episode of Gillard bashing to me, and I am no fan of hers.
    Despite Baker banging on about the matter being ‘unresolved’, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of this. I think he should stop ‘digging’ before he buries himself!!

  3. Dogs breakfast

    The reporting at the time appered somewhat tawdry and mean. Given that this was coming from a section of the media that was the closest thing to a supporter, it was a little OTT.

    In the context of the outrageous treatment of Gillard, it was worse.

    It was a matter that was 17 years old, which seemed to me to be saying that Gillard, as a Solicitor (or was it a lawyer) may have helped someone set up a legal structure that may have led to nefarious activities. God help us, I thought that was the average job description for a legal adviser, whatever name you give them.

    But taking nearly a year to get an APC decision is certainly worth mocking.

  4. klewso

    Of what relevance is evidence in a “trial by media”?

  5. drmick

    This animal baker is being fed by whom? and for what purpose? He looks more ridiculous an insignificant every time he opens his liebook. Keep going thickhead; money for rubbish is on the way out. The rubbish is running the country now.

  6. kwikcounter

    Again, Mark Baker chooses to ignore the facts of life about law firms. Far from it being odd, or indeed reprehensible that Slaters could not locate the 1995 file, the fact is that it would have been extraordinary for such a file to remain in existence. Retention of old (paper) files is costly. As a result, the rules governing law firms require only that files are kept for 7 years. Only the most Dickensian, fuddy-fuddy and inefficient firms would retain files (as opposed to deeds, wills etc) 12 or 15 years after a transaction.
    The Press Council can look after itself, but are we impressed by the style of Baker’s attack on it? It’s ruling is so obviously correct.

  7. David Hand

    I feel your pain, fellas. The most left wing daily newspaper went after Gillard and it’s dang awkward. This inquiry has been held up because of Slater & Gordon’s blocking of police access to the seized files. Now that they’ve lost that action and the police have the documents, including Gillard’s notes, I fear the outcome of that investigation will cause more pain for you all.

    The big joke here is that allegedly, donations ostensibly for workplace education were stolen from AWU members through the misrepresentation of a re-election slush fund and then stolen again for a union official to invest in real estate. Allegedly.

    And Gillard got sacked over it. Allegedly.

  8. TheFamousEccles

    Another example of a rightard not able to accept the umpire’s decision. Allegedly.

  9. John Ryan

    Well if Gillard is cleared which I hope and believe she will be there are going to be a lot of nervous Right wing warriors.
    Both the OZ and AGE defamed her Smith and the 2GB dogs wonder how many swimming pools she needs

  10. bushby jane

    Pity the AWB scandal is not pursued as doggedly so far after the event as the supposed AWU scandal. Slipper is in heaps of strife over around $1000, Gillard’s is a big deal over around $4000, however Abbott’s around $9000 and Reith’s around $50000 are apparently not so bad.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details