By Pilger, John
New Statesman (1996) , Vol. 131, No. 4575
Here in Australia, the "threat" of the "flood" of illegal asylum-seekers (no more than 4,000 arrive in a year, most of them genuine) is said to have given Prime Minister John Howard his election victory last November. The decisive moment was when Howard and his ministers accused refugees of throwing their children overboard from a boat in which they were approaching Australia. These were "vile people", who "went against natural instincts". Last week, two official reports confirmed that this was a lie. Ministers knew the story was bogus but they said nothing.
The main route for these lies and xeno-racism has been the Australian media. Those journalists now complaining about the government's "outrageous deceit" have yet to admit the part they have played in the false hysteria that has clearly hardened public attitudes towards the refugees.
Last month, editors of the leading newspapers meekly agreed to a demand by the authorities that their reporters withdraw from the perimeter of the notorious Woomera "detention camp", where suicides and hunger strikes are common. Since the refugee issue arose, not one reporter has had the wit or the backing to go under cover and expose from the inside camps described by the former conservative prime minister Malcolm Fraser as "hell-holes". Instead, falsehoods have been repeated about refugee parents sewing up their children's lips.
Much of the Australian media is a microcosm of what happens when media monopolies are allowed to destroy diversity of opinion in a free society. This has produced an ethos that richly deserves the sobriquet of Murdochism. Last week, the Murdoch press here offered a shining example. As mentioned by the New Statesman editor, Peter Wilby, in his leader last week, two of Murdoch's Australian papers, the Herald Sun in Melbourne and the Courier-Mail in Brisbane, wrote that my "anti-Semitic stories" had forced "the editor of the New Statesman into a two-page apology".
This breathtaking lie appeared under the byline of the London correspondent of both papers, Leo Schlink, who was aware that Wilby had made clear that I knew nothing about the cover that had caused offence. To describe my column, which analysed the Blair government's support for the Sharon regime in Israel, as "anti-Semitic" is contemptible and defamatory, but not untypical of those who now exploit past Jewish suffering in order to justify and divert attention from Israel's atrocious behaviour. It is hardly surprising that Murdoch has extensive interests in Israel.
Ironically, there is a history of courageous journalism in Australia that goes back more than 100 years when New South Wales had probably the most diverse and adventurous press in the world. Hundreds of newspapers blossomed across the state, many challenging the colonial autocracy and championing civil rights, even Aboriginal rights. …