As asked on The BFD recently, why can’t the media admit that they got it wrong on the Cardinal George Pell case?
Australia’s taxpayer-funded media in particular, pursued Pell with a venom we hadn’t seen since they decided Lindy Chamberlain was too frumpy-looking to be innocent. Whether it was ABC journos with scurrilous potboilers brimming with unfounded gossip and febrile fantasies to sell, or lefty luvvies like Tim Minchin plinking out some more of his standard scatalogical doggerel, no bar was too low for the ABC to shove further down into the muck.
When Pell was cleared by a unanimous decision of Australia’s highest court, there was not one peep of apology from the ABC or its camp-followers.
Worse, the ABC appears to be actively suppressing information that goes against its overheated worldview.
In recent years ABC TV has produced programs and shown documentaries dealing with historical child sexual assault. Some have dealt with real paedophiles – others have speculated (falsely) about an alleged offender.
ABC presenters have invariably described complainants of sexual assault as victims.
This is a gross violation of not just legal norms but journalism ethics. In the first place, it assumes the guilt of the accused rather than the opposite, as is the basis of Common Law. Secondly, it presents an opinion (guilt) as fact. Certainly, many sexual assault complainants are duly found to be victims – but many are not.
But some Australian juries and appeal courts have found that not all complainants have accurate memories and not all accused are guilty.
Inaccurate memories are one thing, though: selective reporting quite another.
ABC TV has recently shown, in the currently vacant Four Corners slot at 8.30pm on Mondays, a BBC Two documentary on terrorism. In August 2020, BBC Two showed the documentary titled The Unbelievable Story of Carl Beech. As MWD readers will be aware, Carl Beech (aka “Nick”) was a fantasist who made allegations of child sexual assault against such high profile Brits as Sir Edward Heath, Lord (Leon) Brittan, Lord (Edwin) Bramall and Harvey Proctor. Early in its investigation, the Metropolitan Police Service (MET) said that what Nick had said was “credible and true”. The case fell apart and Beech is currently in prison for fraud.
The Carl Beech case created considerable attention in Britain. Hence Vanessa Engle’s documentary The Unbelievable Story of Carl Beech. It has been favourably reviewed in the left-of-centre Guardian (by Lucy Mangan) and the right-of-centre Spectator (by James Walton).
Hmm. High profile figures falsely accused of child sex crimes. Apparently, the ABC doesn’t want its viewers thinking about that.
On 16 November Gerard Henderson wrote a courteous letter to ABC managing director and editor-in-chief David Anderson asking whether the public broadcaster had any intention of showing The Unbelievable Story of Carl Beech. Alas, there was no reply.
Likewise ABC’s senior communications staff – Nick Leys and Sally Jackson – did not respond to Gerard Henderson’s query.
Don’t mention the War, it seems.
It is not clear why the ABC seems to be showing no interest in the Carl Beech case – despite the fact that this was referred to by Justice Mark Weinberg in his dissent in Pell v The Queen in the Victorian Court of Appeal. Justice Weinberg’s dissent was essentially agreed to by all seven justices of the High Court of Australia last April in what is also cited as Pell v The Queen.
Currently the ABC is giving the impression that it does not want to show a documentary which demonstrates that false allegations can be made by seemingly compelling and truthful complainants. Perhaps because it runs contrary to the ABC’s narrative on this issue. Certainly the fact that the Carl Beech documentary is a BBC Two product cannot be a problem. After all, the ABC broadcast the BBC’s three part documentary The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty earlier this year.
The Australian
Ah, well – there’s another Goldstein figure for the ABC to run a good ol’ Two Minutes of Hate against.
