Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
January 13th 2017 print

Roger Franklin

Fake News: Fauxfax and Their ABC

If you believe the Age, SMH and our national broadcaster, FBI Director James Comey is in a whole lot of trouble for nobbling Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House. Actually, the cited document suggests it is the failed candidate and her cronies who are in the hottest water

crooked hillaryThe business of journalism is actually pretty simple — or should be — especially when it comes to re-writing press releases. Your garden-variety hack reads the hand-out from a company, government agency, PR outfit or whatever, re-writes it and submits the copy to an editor who casts an eye over the offering and, allowing that there is nothing glaringly stupid about it, places the reporter’s effort in the paper or, these days, on the news organisation’s website. If there is a problem, an eye-smacking incongruity or doubts about the veracity of the source, checks are instituted and corrections made. That’s the theory, anyway.

Idiots could do it, one would think. But that expectation, alas, is beyond the wit and means of the click-baiters at the Age, Sydney Morning Herald and ABC, all of which today (January 13) published a Reuters report that asserted, as the Fairfax headline put it, “FBI, [sic] director James Comey’s actions during US election to be probed“.

The shame of this story is that it is no better than 10% correct. Its original sin is the confirmation bias of the editors who chose to run it as is.

First, the headline’s errant comma suggests grammatical incompetence, once regarded as a damnable journalistic vice, but difficulty with the language is the most petty of the account’s flaws. Of much greater concern is that the Reuters wire copy is not merely wrong but reekingly so by virtue of its misrepresentation by omission. A competent foreign-desk editor, one who keeps abreast of his or her assigned beat, would have spiked it at a glance. Actually, make that “editors”, because the national broadcaster is no better and quite possibly more culpable, as its story is longer but every bit as guilty of distortion by what is left out.

The press release from the US Department of Justice’s watchdog Office of the Inspector General can be found here. A Google search require precisely .75 of a second to locate it. Below, interspersed with explanations, are reproductions of its key points.

doj 1

The “public announcement of July 5” was FBI Director James Comey’s then-baffling declaration that, while candidate Clinton had been grossly careless with her private server and government secrets, no charges would be brought. Here some background is required — background a competent foreign editor should have known and most certainly should have shared with readers.

The blithe presumption at both Fairfax and the ABC would be, or so one can guess, that Comey meddled with the voters’ minds by first “clearing” Mrs Clinton, then “on October 28″ raising further doubts about her honesty by re-activating the investigation. When your favoured candidate loses, explanations other than what voters perceived to be the odium of her dishonesty are required. Hence the ongoing besmirching of Comey’s own reputation and honesty.

There is a bit more to it than that, however.

The Brooklyn office of the FBI, in charge of exploring the matter of Mrs Clinton’s secret basement-server, consistently stonewalled attempts by the Manhattan office, investigating the Clinton Foundation, to cooperate and share intelligence. The Manhattan office, staffed and led by Rudy Giuliani’s hires, wanted the email records in order to match them with trips, meetings and donations to the Foundation. The Brooklyn office, formerly led and largely staffed by acolytes of current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch, wouldn’t have a bar of it.

It was Brooklyn’s analysis of the email scandal on which Comey largely relied in announcing his initial decision not to bring charges. All this is old news, extensively detailed in late October, 2016, by Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett, whose magisterial account was reproduced in the Australian. Any competent foreign editor should have known all about this. A foreign editor more keen to advance the meme that Mrs Clinton’s bid for the White House was nobbled by a capricious and quite possibly partisan Comey would prefer to let that information vanish down the memory hole.

Now read the above excerpt once more. Far from fingering Comey as the sole subject of the Inspector General’s probe, as presented by Fairfax and the ABC, it suggests the intramural discord laid out by the WSJ‘s Barrett will be every bit as much the topic for review. In other words, the Clinton posse will be under just as much scrutiny as Comey; indeed, perhaps more.doj 2

 

And who is the FBI’s deputy director? Why, Andrew McCabe, a close Clinton pal whose wife, Jill, running for a state Senate seat as a Democrat, received a $467,500 campaign donation from former Democratic National Committee fund-raiser, Virginia governor and Clinton crony, Terry McAuliffe, who is rated even by far-left Mother Jones magazine to be as dubious a customer as any to operate inside the Beltway. Good reason there, or so one would think, for Mrs McCabe’s husband to stay well away from any investigation of Billary.

This aspect of the Inspector General’s upcoming investigation further suggests the Clinton crew are in as much jeopardy, perhaps more, than is Comey. Again, it was all detailed in Barrett’s WSJ account and elsewhere, including CBS News, no friend of Donald Trump.

A competent foreign editor should have known about all of the above and, regardless of personal political leanings, should have laid it out for readers it is journalism’s boast to serve with the truth and to do so without fear or favour. That those same readers were instead peddled the latest bogus update of the Left’s comforting narrative that Mrs Clinton was robbed blind on November 8 by, to quote her own words from years earlier, “a vast right-wing conspiracy” says everything about the real source and propagators of the fake news we have heard so much about of late.

Trust Fairfax and the ABC? Only if you are dim or bent enough to land a job as one of those organisations senior editors.

Roger Franklin is the editor of Quadrant Online. His on-the-ground coverage of the 2016 presidential election can be read here

 

 

 

 

 

Comments [6]

  1. en passant says:

    Roger,
    It is ‘HillBillary’ as they Clinton Crime Cartel hail from the Dark Woods of Arkansas.
    Unfortunately, where I am living overseas my main sources of ‘news is via the BBC & CNN MSM (Masterfully Selective Misinformation). I can get the ABC, but there is only so much cringing one can take before damaging the screen.
    Fortunately, I do have more reliable sources when trying to discern the truth, so I spend more time on Al Jazeera and Russia Today, with RT being by far the best.
    The alternatives are online, such as Breitbart, Quadrant, The Spectator, WUWT and sites sent to me by others via emails.

    I should take you to task for cruelty to the simple FewFacts fibbers because while it survives it is a few less payments the taxpayer has to make through CentreLink

  2. padraic says:

    “Faufax”. What a great nickname (and appropriate) for Fairfax. When “their ABC” is not peddling faux facts they’re into mindless drivel. Switching on News Radio this morning in the faint hope of listening to “news” of the type relevant to the average joe, I was regaled with about a 5 minute dissertation on menopause in female (I presumed) killer whales. Some “researcher”, posing as the academic equivalent of a dole bludger with his snout in the “research” funding trough, gave us a breathless account of how killer whale menopause was vital to the future of mankind. Sussan Ley’s use of taxpayers’ money is nothing to what “researchers” are doing with the stuff.

    • rogerfranklin says:

      The late US Senator Proxmire, not a bad fellow for a Democrat, handed out his Golden Fleece awards every year for this sort of thing. It would require less effort and no research in Australia to ientify the tax-hoovers: any ARC grant to anyone hailing for a “studies” faculty — gay studies, womyns studies, climate studies, circus studies, interesting-things-to-do-with-carrot studies — could/should be struck off the grant list without a moment’s hesitation.

    • Real Oz says:

      Now if only the research project had been entitled “Killer Whale Menopause with regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming” all the confusion wold have been avoided – Well wouldn’t it???

  3. Dallas Beaufort says:

    A “nigger brown” man, as the story puts it, like Denish D’Souza needs to come on down and break some mirrors.

  4. Jody says:

    This is interesting, from Tucker Carlson’s program. I’ve long advocated this kind of instruction for students, particularly now that we are fully immersed in the digital age. Trouble is, he doesn’t frame his own argument well enough in terms of “critical thinking” and Tucker drives a truck through him on the side issue of “fake”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmzYEgdDNsg