Bibliography

Denton, Andrew, 2008, Enough Rope: Chris Masters, November 3, ABC, transcript available from http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2408446.htm
Fitzgerald, Ross, 2007, Jonestown: The Power and Myth of Alan Jones, The Australian, November 11th.
Front Page- The ABC Board and Jonestown, 2006, Episode 21, transcript available from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1677828.htm
It’s official: Alan Jones is the new Harry Potter, Sun Herald, 2006, 29th October
Madden, James, 2006, Ex-detective sues over Jonestown book claims, The Australian, December 13.
Marr, David, 2006, The nation reviewed, The Monthly, December 2006, Issue 19.
Masters, Chris, 2006, Book critics silent about Jones’s many scandals, The Australian, October 28.
Masters, Chris, 2010, Interview with Bohdana Szydlik, March 11, National Library of Australia.
Norrington, Brad, 2007, Alan Jones supporter wins defamation payout, The Australian, 8th September.
O’Brien, Kerry, 2006, 7.30 Report: Chris Masters, October 23 ABC, transcript available from www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1771701.htm
Pearson, Christoper, 2006, Detestable standards, The Australian, October 28
Ricketson, Matthew, 2006, Shock jock tight-lipped on Jonestown, The Age. October 23.
Ricketson, Matthew, 2006, The man’s power is the story, The Age, November 6
Salter, David, Who’s for breakfast Mr Jones? The Monthly, May 2006, Issue 12
Simons, Margaret, 2006, Margaret Simons on Jonestown, October 30, available from http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/10/30/margaret-simons-on-jonestown/
Trouble in Jonestown, 2006, Media Watch, Episode 38, transcript available from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1776943.htm
Wyndham, Susan (2007) First awards for Jones expose, Sydney Morning Herald, 25th July, viewed 20th May 2010, Factiva database.

So runs the blurb for the book ‘Dark Victory’. It is an extraordinary account of the events leading to the 2001 Australian election, and a phenomenal work of investigative journalism. The following is an analysis of this book, and will discuss the outline and themes of the book, the purpose of the book and what it achieved, the newsworthy revelations in the book, discuss the author’s sources for the book, and the issues with publishing, legality and ethics.

‘Dark Victory’ is a book written by David Marr and Marian Wilkinson, both experienced investigative journalists. The book was first published by Allen & Unwin publishers in Australia in 2003, and a second edition in 2004. It has won two awards, including the 2003 Human Rights Award for the Arts Non-fiction category, and the 2003 Queensland Premier’s Literary Awards for Best Literary or Media Work Advancing Public Debate (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004).

The book describes in part how the Howard government won the election in 2001, and in particular the eleven weeks leading up to the election from the Tampa boat crisis, several other boats entering Australian waters, and the ‘children overboard’ affair. It also has a final chapter entitled ‘Aftermath’ that details what happened to the main players in the story after the election was won. The book also revealed the deception and misinformation of the government, as well as highlighted issues of the national perception of ‘boat people’ and how the government played on people’s fears to gain popularity.

The text chronicles various events that happened out at sea, and describes the communications between all the organisations involved in the boat people’s rescue, the Howard Government’s Pacific Solution, as well as the various other actors involved, including details of lawsuits regarding the actions for the government’s legal right to move the boats and ‘protect’ the country’s borders. It also describes the Australian political climate, discussing both Labor and One Nation’s role in the election, which provides an important context for the government’s actions.

The major theme of the book is the control of information (Mares, 2003). Information is controlled concerning the actual conditions of the boat people, which was denied public access, as well as vital legal information, both that should have been available for the asylum seekers and also for the Australian public concerning Australia’s legal obligations to them. Throughout the book, it is demonstrated that Howard is the master of deception, who often manages to deceive without ever really lying (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004).

The conclusions the book makes of the series of incidents regarding Australia’s border protection policy and the Howard government’s use of it to win an election is – while never stated in outright terms – clearly regarded as wrong. Howards’s election speech is contrasted with later statements that completely deny the border protection policies had a hand in his victory, and that he had manipulated Australia’s underlying racial tension to help in this victory (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004).

The control of information is demonstrated continuously by the contrast of eye-witness accounts of what really happened to the asylum seekers with speeches from government Ministers at the time. The process of describing the difference between the situation and what is being said about it lays bare the obvious misrepresentation of the circumstances to the public. In particular, there are points where commentary is added between public comments to assist in deciphering their meaning.

The book’s contents are well summarised in this paragraph.
“John Howard survived all the revelations. He never retreated, never admitted error and just kept talking. As much as his election victory, the stonewalling of the revelations from the Senate gave Howard the appearance of being an unassailable political force in these months. That his government had lied in pursuit of victory was inescapably clear but most Australians forgave him. They liked what Howard had done.” (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004)

I believe the authors wrote this book because they felt it was their job, as journalists, to expose the deception that the government had employed and the laws it flouted in the name of political gain, as well as the terrible cost to human lives their actions might have indirectly caused.

David Marr gave an address at the National Press Club after the release of their book, where he makes a plea to people in government employment, to try and prevent further deception to the Australian public from their own government.

“It is my plea to the Press Club today that if things go wrong in this war, if there are lies being told, leak. And start straightaway the minute there is any sign of trouble. Please, leak.” (National Press Club 2003)

I believe the book accomplished what it set out to do. It explained in great and accurate detail the events that were hidden from the public where the government had gone wrong and kept it hidden. It also explained what the nation’s sentiments were at the time regarding these issues, and how Howard’s control of the media agenda, as well as exploiting people’s fears, kept him popular amongst voters. It laid bare the facts about boat people, gave them humanity that the government denied them, and informed the public so that they may not let this happen again.

The book cover proclaims it was a best-seller, and there is only one slightly negative review of it that I have discovered. This review even then has only one error to record, and goes on to describe the overall merits of the work (Matchett 2003).

As it is a work of investigative journalism, newsworthy revelations of the book include:
• Evidence that the Department of Defence did try to correct the misinformation of children being thrown overboard
• Alexander Downer bullying the Norwegian Ambassador
• Arne Rinnan, captain of the MV Tampa, who had rescued the stranded refugees, being threatened with legal action by the Australian government for people smuggling were he to land the refugees on Christmas Island
• The forced removal of refugees from the HMAS Manoora to Nauru
• That various organizations had knowledge of SIEV-X leaving Indonesia, although the civilian knowledge was considered unreliable by the military and therefore ignored
• The actual conditions of the refugees on the Tampa

For the extensive amounts of detail in the book, the journalists drew from many sources of information, all except first-hand observation, which would have been nearly impossible in this case, given the tight government control at the time. Marr and Wilkinson drew extensively on the Freedom of Information Act to gain information from government sources (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004; Mares, 2003; National Press Club 2003). They also interviewed many insiders from civilian and military organisations, as well asylum seekers from the boats, and all the Norwegians. Where they didn’t interview themselves, they obtained accounts from Amnesty International, and also the biggest revealer of information was the Senate Estimates Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident (Marr and Wilkinson, 2004; Mares, 2003; National Press Club 2003)

Marr also said, and this may hint at the great lengths he and Wilkinson went to, to get information, that, “I have to say I brought engineers in to confirm what had actually happened to the Palapa’s engine,” (National Press Club, 2003). One may infer that the authors dug as much as they could to get information about this story. There is a solid seven pages of ‘Acknowledgements’ that include many names of people they interviewed, but also mention the ones they interviewed but couldn’t name. The book was very thoroughly researched.

The authors commented throughout the book how information was tightly controlled at the time, and with the exception of Admiral Shackleton’s comments that he later amended, there were no leaks.

There were no major legal issues following the publication of this book. All information was gained through publicly available channels, and any comments made are actually defended by the constitution because it is political commentary.

There were ethical issues perhaps in how the journalists represented certain people in this book. While all reporting of the facts was accurate, one article mentioned that the descriptions of the people involved might have been biased (Matchett, 2003). The article noted that the description of Phillip Ruddock was very unfavourable, and revealed the authors’ particular bias against him as a politician.

In summary, the book was an accurate and compelling portrayal of the events leading up to the 2001 election. It was deeply and thoroughly researched and presented in such a way that there could be little doubt about the truth in its words. It is also worth noting that amongst the most important of issues raised in the book, it allowed what the Howard government denied the asylum seekers – a voice.

References
• The Australian (2003, April 19.) One book a week. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from Factiva database.

• Brett, J. (2007) Exit Right: The Unravelling of John Howard [online]. Quarterly Essay, No. 28: 1-96.

• Bowler, M. (2003, May 24) What really happened on the Tampa. Daily News. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from Factiva database.

• Mares, P. (2003) Messing about in boats [Edited version of an interview of David Marr by Mares, Peter conducted at Reader's Feast bookshop, Melbourne, 2003.] [online]. Meanjin (Melbourne), v.62, no.3, 2003: 6-14. Availability: ISSN: 0025-6293. [cited 24 May 10]. Accessed: 24/05/2010

• Marr D., and Wilkinson, M. (2004) Dark Victory, Allen & Unwin.

• Matchett, S. (2003, April 5) Rules for refugees go overboard. The Australian. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from Factiva database.

• Murray, A (2003). Dark Victory [Book Review] [online]. Australasian Catholic Record, The, Vol. 80, No. 4, Oct 2003: 529-530.

• National Press Club (2003). ‘David Marr address to the National Press Club on the launch of his book ‘Dark victory’: a detailed account of the Tampa crisis, written with Marian Wilkinson.’ Parliament of Australia, Parlinfo Search.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Ftvprog%2F2YT86%22 Accessed: 24/05/2010

• Poynting, S. (2004) Advanced Australian Fear: A Review Essay [Book Review] [online]. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 16, No. 2, Nov 2004: 241-252

• SievX.com (2010) “David Marr interviewed by Phillip Adams”
http://sievx.com/articles/challenging/2003/20030310DavidMarr.html Accessed: 24/05/2010

• Wood, D. (2003, March 22) Tampa’s secrets exposed. Hobart Mercury. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from Factiva database.

Stone worked for two Packer organisations. He was the Nine Network’s News Director from 1974 -1976, Documentary Special Unit Producer (1976-1978), Executive Producer of 60 Minutes (1978-1989) and Australian Consolidated Press’s Editor-in-Chief of The Bulletin from 1995-1998.

Stone is a Non-Executive Director and Deputy Chairman of the Special Broadcasting Service. He is in the tenth year of his second five year appointment to that position.

The book was launched at 3pm on the 27th June 2007. The publisher is Pan Macmillan Australia of Market Street, Sydney. There was100,000 copies of the book printed, which was the largest print run for a non fiction title. It sold for $45.00 in hard copy. It has sold approximately 85,000 copies and is still available as a trade paperback from Pan Macmillan for $35.00.

It was released 18 months after the death of Kerry Packer and his son James Packer assumed control of Publishing and Broadcasting Pty Ltd (PBL Media); eight months after James Packer had sold 50 per cent of PBL Media to the private equity company CVC Asia; and less than one month after James Packer sold a further 25 per cent of a restructured PBL Media to CVC Asia.

It was published after a period of instability within the management of the Kerry Packer owned companies and continuing instability in the James Packer, CVC Asia owned entity. There were news reports indicating conflicts of direction within the companies between Kerry Packer and his son. It was believed that Kerry Packer had a deep affection for the television arm of his company, preferring ratings over profits and wanting it to maintain the Nine Network’s prestigious position in the market. It was believed James wanted the television component of the company to be treated like any other part, needing a feasible business model to produce profits.

The book also appeared to pinpoint a transformative moment in the media landscape that had been underway for more than a decade. Packer’s television network had been the most successful and aggressive in Australia but in the 1990’s audiences for television had been falling, threatening the flow of advertising revenue. There was a proliferation of media devices as alternative sources of information and entertainment became available to the public. Media enterprises had to respond to this changed environment to remain profitable. It was within that context the father and son management conflict existed and permeated the daily functions of the company.

The book’s contents expose the brutal corporate battle that occurred within the Packer-owned companies in the final years of his life and immediately after his death. There is devious, calculating and treacherous behaviour on display by different levels of management and by some of the most powerful people within the companies.

“Who Killed Channel 9?” reminisces about the Nine Network’s history, harking back to an era it refers to as “The Golden Age”, a period covering the late 1970’s through to the mid 1990’s. Stone recounts that this was a time where Packer would fund projects like the current affairs programme 60 Minutes with the simple and direct instruction;

“I don’t give a fuck what it takes…Just do it and get it right.”

The story is set against the backdrop of Kerry Packer’s health problems, in particular his severe heart and renal failures. It is in that context that John Alexander was appointed to the position of Head of PBL Media, with control of the television and magazine sectors, and David Leckie was dismissed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Nine Network.

The book is written as a narrative. The characters have their place within the story and are clearly defined in roles of good and evil. The former Chief Executive Officer from “The Golden Age” of the Nine Network is the “legendary” Sam Chisholm. The two producers of the successful reality renovations show “The Block” are the “brilliant” Julian Cress and David Barbour while John Alexander is “cruel” and “double-crossing” in his goal of overturning a culture and reducing costs; John Lyons is his “apparatchik” within Channel 9.

Revelations in the book start on page one with the quote from Kerry Packer on his death bed. His son James, who had just returned from holidaying in the Maldives to be with his father, said his farewells then left the room. Kerry was eased into unconsciousness by doctors. That was the morning of Boxing Day 2005. Stone quotes Packer as coming to and saying;

“Am I still here? How fucking long is this going to take?”

I asked Stone about the credibility of the quote and he told me;

“I’m quite confident in the sourcing. It came from one source who was in a position to know, was confirmed by another a la Watergate, by amazement that I had it, and has never been questioned or refuted by the Packer family.”

Other revelations that have never been disputed include John Alexander negotiating and signing Jana Wendt, in November 2002, to be the host of the Sunday programme, without the knowledge of the Nine Network’s Head of News and Current Affairs, Peter Meakin.

In the same month and year, John Alexander starting talking with the Seven Network’s David Koch to replace the Nine Network’s business reporter Michael Pascoe, again without the knowledge of Peter Meakin. Stone says Koch broke off negotiations because he couldn’t stomach how Alexander treated with contempt Pascoe’s reputation and performance.

In the Spring of 2002, John Alexander introduced Susan Bower to Kerry Packer with the aim of her replacing the Head of Drama, Kris Noble. Stone says Bower, a relatively junior producer on the successful series McLeod’s Daughters, came to Alexander’s attention because she was in a meditation class with his wife, Alice Pagliano. Alexander took this action without the knowledge of the Nine Network’s interim Chief Executive Officer, Ian Johnson, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, David Gyngell and Programme Director, John Stephens.

The revelations in the book about John Alexander give a strong sense of a one sided story. Quotes and information about Alexander seem to come from a secondary source. I asked Gerald Stone if he had interviewed John Alexander for “Who Killed Channel 9?” He told me;

“I didn’t seek an interview with JA (John Alexander) for these reasons. Most of the people I spoke to had a story about what they saw as his behavior or attitude towards them. That was their perspective and nothing he could say could possibly change that. In terms of the quotes attributed to him, they were usually confirmed by more than one source or fitted into a modus operandi described by more than one source.”

In a section of the book that details a court action taken by PBL Media against the former Head of News and Current Affairs Mark Llewellyn for breach of contract, Llewellyn’s sworn affidavit at the court hearing in June 2006, details a number of conversations between Llewellyn and John Alexander. While the claims were never tested in court, Stone says of the quotes in the book attributed to John Alexander;

“In the only case that his alleged words could be considered defamatory of him – the Mark Llewellyn affidavit, they were sworn testimony and never refuted by him.”

Stone also points to one of the perils of publishing as a reason for not interviewing John Alexander.

“There was also a potential problem I had to deal with all through the writing –the strong possibility of attracting an injunction simply as a nuisance action (that) the PBL executives could well afford. I did not want to alert them to the content unless I felt it absolutely necessary on grounds of fairness, which did occur in several cases I don’t care to elaborate on.”

There was a significant legal issue associated with the book involving the former Executive Producer of the Nine Network’s Sunday Program, John Lyons and the former Chairman of the NRMA board, Nicholas Whitlam. Lyons had interviewed Whitlam for the Sunday Programme and the interview won Lyons a Walkley Award for Broadcast Interview in 2001. Of that interview, Stone accuses Lyons of;

“…one of the worst examples of unfair reporting that I have seen in my 25 years in television.”

Stone detailed how one of Whitlam’s answers had been edited and taken out of context and without his stated caveats. Media reports immediately after the publication of “Who Killed Channel 9?” claimed Lyons believed he had been defamed and was threatening legal action. Lyons is reported as saying of Stone;

“… he hasn’t bothered to make a phone call. Don’t you at least think that he should have telephoned to ask me about the editing of it?”

There were also reports that investigative journalist, Chris Masters, had examined the unedited tapes, at Lyons request, and that he did not see any problems with how the story was edited. This was contested by the first Executive Producer of the Sunday, Allan Hogan, who wrote a letter to The Australian newspaper on the 2nd July, 2007 saying;

“Any reasonable person who examines the full transcript of Lyons’s interview with Mr Whitlam and compares it with what went to air, would have to agree with Stone’s description of it as unfair reporting. By unethically editing Mr Whitlam’s answers, Lyons falsely represented Mr Whitlam as a liar.”

On the same day, there were reports that PBL Media had a confidential settlement, out of court, over defamation action taken by Nicholas Whitlam because of the interview. On his official web site, Nicolas Whitlam uses Gerald Stone’s words from “Who Killed Channel 9?” to describe the “invented” interview and says that the defamation action was settled in February 2007, five months before the book was launched.

With this in mind, I asked Gerald Stone why he thought Lyons did not continue with his defamation threat to Stone. He answered;

“It would be wrong for me to guess why he didn’t sue. I could say because he knew he couldn’t succeed but that’s not necessarily true – he might just as well have felt it wasn’t worth the time and effort. He did have a lawyer send a couple of warning letters but didn’t pursue these. All I can say is that as a senior producer I have encountered numerous such examples of faulty and/or misleading editing and wouldn’t expect my reporter to argue with me about my direction to correct them – fair reportage is fair reportage.”

Stone said he was scared “Who killed Channel 9?” would be seen as a drama, a book of conflict between father and son and not a book about the media, the Packer dynasty and their place in Australian history.

I think it is both. By his use of narrative and strongly contrasting characters there is a thriller element to the story. Myth and nostalgia are embraced by fact and investigation.

The shortcomings of the book stem from Stone’s obvious affection for Kerry Packer. He said the book’s title referred to the spiritual death of Channel 9, the death of the passion of Kerry Packer.

However, there is enough evidence in the book to suggest that Packer was also complicit in the management upheaval and instability at the Nine Network. He sacked David Leckie, he hired John Alexander, he accepted Peter Meakin’s resignation and sanctioned deep staff cuts. Yet Packer is not treated as a villain in the narrative but as an extraordinary character, the silverback of his generation, a man to be admired.

This bias undermines the journalistic credibility of the book. In Stone’s own words, fair reportage is fair reportage and the death of Kerry Packer’s dream machine should have included more acknowledgement of the self harm that was inflicted.

Bibliography:

Affidavit of Mark John Llewellyn 23rd June 2006. 2006. Supreme Court of NSW. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/aff21.pdf

Eddie ends bid to keep talks secret. 2006. Brad Norington and Jennifer Sexton. The Weekend Australian 1st July, 2006. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=AuthorId%3A008QR%7CSpeakerId%3A008QR%7CReporterId%3A008QR%20SearchCategory_Phrase%3A%22media%22%20Author_Phrase%3A%22sexton,%20jennifer%22;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=

Fear and Loathing at the station Kerry built. 2007. Patrick Carlyon. Sydney Morning Herald, Business Day 29th June, 2009. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/28/1182624083183.html

Kerry Packer wanted son ‘boned’. 2007. Jane Schulze. Perth Now 28th June, 2007. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/kerry-packer-wanted-son-boned/story-e6frg12c-1111113850858

Newlywed Packer rides out media storm with polo. 2007. Brad Norington and Peter Wilson. The Daily Telegraph 3rd July, 2007. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/newlywed-packer-rides-out-media-storm-with-polo/story-e6frez7r-1111113874651?from=public_rss

Nine in Whitlam payout: author. 2007. Brad Norington. The Australian 2nd July, 2007. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/nine-in-whitlam-payout-author/story-e6frg6nf-1111113866452

SBS Corporate. 2010. Gerald Stone – Non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/team/detail/id/332

Stone, G. 2010. Email interview with author. 21st May 2010. glstone@bigpond.net.au

Stone, G. 2007. Interview on Sunrise 15th July 2007. The Seven Network. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=customrank;page=2;query=Content%3A%22gerald%20stone%22%20Dataset%3Apressclp,emms,radioprm,tvprog;querytype=;rec=4;resCount=Default

Gerald Stone. 2007. ABC 3rd July, 2007. http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/conversations/stories/s1968792.htm?sydney

The Packer toll. 2007. Margaret Simons. Australian Book Review November 2007. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Current/nov07simonsreview.htm

The poison, the pay cuts and the plan to sack Jessica Rowe. 2006. Lisa Murray. Sydney Morning Herald 1st July, 2006. http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/poison-pay-cuts-and-the-plan-to-sack-jessica-rowe/2006/06/30/1151174401419.html

Weir, J. 2010. Email interview with Jessica Weir, employee of Pan Macmillan Publishers. 19th May, 2010. Jessica.Weir@macmillan.com.au

Whitlam, N. 2010. Nicholas Whitlam the official site. NRMA Litigation. http://www.whitlam.com.au/news.htm

Who Killed Channel 9? Gerald Stone. 2010. Pan Macmillan Australia 18th May, 2010. http://www.panmacmillan.com.au/display_title.asp?ISBN=9781405038157&Author=Stone,%20Gerald

Who Killed Channel 9?. 2007. Matthew Ricketson. The Age 17th July, 2007. http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/who-killed-channel-9/2007/07/17/1184559776834.html

Who Killed Channel 9?. 2007. Ben Hills. Sydney Morning Herald 13th July, 2007. http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/who-killed-channel-9/2007/07/13/1183833758824.html

Why is Chris Masters defending Lyons’ Whitlam interview?. 2007. Glen Dyer. Crikey 2nd July, 2007. http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/07/02/why-is-chris-masters-defending-lyons-whitlam-interview/

For the purpose of this essay the Iraq war refers to the more recent war in Iraq defined by the initial invasion by US military troops in 2003 and the continuing western military occupation of the country. The Viet Nam war refers to the conflict based in Viet Nam from 1955- 1975. The terms “investigative journalism” and “investigative reporting” are also important to define. They can be considered in many different ways but they primarily hinge on original research, considerable gathering and analysis of facts, figures and data or extensive interviewing processes. It can also be considered as uncovering hidden truths, especially when hidden by figures of authority. It could be said that investigative journalism can be measured through the time commitments and degree of difficulty in compiling a piece of journalism, matched with a particular uniqueness of information. Investigative journalism and reporting can be all of these things at once or simply contain one important element of the above.

It is often argued that investigative journalism is the first to suffer from the many problems facing the industry today. Media organisations are asked to produce more work, in several mediums, in less time, with less money and fewer reporters. This leaves the time-consuming and costly nature of investigative journalism very vulnerable. The strain on the industry has begun to show with recent announcements made by media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch regarding plans to charge for online content. A clear mismanagement and underestimation of what recent changes to journalism would mean for journalism in the long run has led to an out of control industry and this is something Murdoch, himself, acknowledges. However, as Peter Wilcox notes, as long as media outlets are run by people with a background in journalism rather than experts in business management, there will always be a place for investigative journalism. In fact, it can be quite an effective business model as the often-associated exclusive scoop or analysis that goes along with investigative journalism holds an edge over other competing media outlets. Thinking about investigative war reporting, he points to the extent at which newspaper sales went up during the September 11 attacks in New York, many of which using 20 plus pages to cover the breaking story. It should be mentioned, much of this reportage came with the sacrifice of advertising revenue. Granted, much of this involved hard news reporting but the deeply personal accounts of survivors and witnesses is just one example of some of the investigative reporting at the time.

The capacity to produce investigative war reporting in newspapers, television, radio and online is debateable but there are other problems and obstacles facing investigative war reporting to look at as well. Significant changes surrounding investigative war reporting from the Viet Nam war to the Iraq war have proven to be close to insurmountable. Firstly, the professionalism of media relations shows a noticeable difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq. Some of the more famous investigative media work during the Viet Nam war includes the detailing of the discrepancy between Pentagon figures regarding enemy body counts as opposed to actual figures as well as the coverage and exposure of My Lai massacre. Such work was powerful enough in shaping public opinion that after the war, the US government changed policy in order to restrict access and seriously inhibit or at least control media coverage in times of war. In order to avoid glorifying the era though, it should be noted that such powerful journalism did not begin with the war. Like the war in Iraq, this level of exposure did not occur for many years.
Not only was the media handled very successfully by the Bush administration through innumerable tactics , but the Centre for Public Integrity claims that, as well as this, the Bush administration…
“…made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
These lies were primarily over allegations, evidence and suspicions of weapons of mass destruction. The media did not succeed in looking past the media handling of the Bush Government regarding reasons for actually invading Iraq for a very long time and, rather, played a major role in supporting the invasion. The Howard government in Australia also didn’t question the lies and the political message was re-iterated locally. The overwhelming support for the war provided by the media is seen as a serious failure of investigative journalism. A failure it may have been, but this level of media management is incomparable to that of the Viet Nam war- and this is just scratching the surface of how the media was and is dealt with. This sentence is not quite clear.
As well as dealing with the constant media handling regarding the Iraq war, the blanket of secrecy, bolstered by new anti-terrorism laws in Australia, has become incredibly difficult to break through. Media freedoms regarding investigative war reporting in Iraq are now seriously limited. Journalists who have reported during both wars have also noted a marked difference in military co-operation in producing journalism. One element of this can be found in the identification of sources. During the Viet Nam war it was perfectly legitimate to barely ? name military sources. This has obvious negative implications in the ability to fabricate sources, however, by being able to use a level of anonymity, soldiers were able to speak more frankly and openly about what they felt, what they saw, what they did and what they thought about the war they were fighting in. There’s now less opportunity to get this crucially informative and investigative information with increased military supervision of interviews and the obligatory naming of military sources (as enforced by the military and encouraged by publications) as there are now increased repercussions experienced by soldiers who speak. The degree of bias within Iraq war reporting as created by the process of embedding journalists within troops is also highly questionable.
Another noted difference is the increased physical risk experienced by war reporters. Journalists have noted that they are simply not as safe as they were in Viet Nam as the violence is more chaotic, unpredictable and less directed at actual soldiers. While it is true that these issues facing journalists were not as problematic and even non-existent during the Viet Nam war, developments in technology have made investigative war reporting much easier in other ways than it was four decades ago.

Not all changes to the industry since the Viet Nam war have been necessarily bad. Developments in technology bring with them solutions and tools for journalism like the world has never before experienced. The logistical difference in reporting during both wars alone is staggering. With the Internet, lap-top computers, satellite and telephone communications, what used to take hours or even days and months can now take just seconds. Not only is the transfer of information across immense distances faster, but it’s also of a higher quality. International transfer of feature length pieces, images, footage, audio and live international reporting are only possible with the modern tools journalists have at their fingertips today. The research process is also much faster than what it once was. What may have taken months of research or may have been entirely inaccessible is now retrieved at great speed through the use of the Internet. Groups and important contacts can also now be discovered on a whole new level with the ability for almost anyone to run their own website.

Access to and the ability to share information is another important part of the overall investigative effort towards reporting on Iraq. This can be found in publications such as The Iraq Body Count and the thousands of websites demonstrating investigative reportage of the highest calibre such as the New York Times, The New Yorker and the BBC. The website archives of Four Corners, one of Australia’s most reputable sources of investigative journalism, seems to show a lack of investigative coverage on the Iraq war after 2003. This isn’t as much of an issue as it once might have been, though, as audiences are able to reach for international media providers who are covering the war more actively. On that note, alternative voices in investigative reporting are also important to acknowledge. The boundary of costs involved with producing news barely exist anymore with the ability for anyone to produce a low cost website as publication vessel. In Viet Nam reporters were relying on an outlet ‘back home’ to publish their work. Investigative war reporters attempting to show a different side of the war, contrary to what the North American Government would have audiences believe, found their stories consistently watered down, edited or killed by the government or worse- their editors. Even legal costs are less of a barrier than they once were for journalists who challenge the government and other powerful forces. This is evidenced in the overwhelming support of the legal community provided to one website, Wikileaks.org.

Modern technology also contributes to the investigative effort in other ways. While the blanket of secrecy can be particularly challenging, it is no match for the wonders of the digital age. One of the most shocking pieces of investigative journalism was made possible and irrefutable through the existence of personal digital cameras in the facilities of Abu Ghraib and it was a shock felt around the world. This example also shows how investigative war reporting has changed in a very powerful way. Through a combination of the forces of globalisation, one piece of investigative war reporting arguably changed the way the world saw the war and the operations of the US military. One powerful leak exploded on the Internet and proved that investigative war reporting no longer needs to be thought of in terms of local boundaries. , Another recent example of powerful investigative journalism on this level is found in the Wikileaks release of retrieved and leaked footage taken by military apache helicopters and depicting the killing of innocent people including journalists and children. Technological development is one thing the two wars share in common with Viet Nam being the first war to be truly shown on a television screen- marking a generation of investigative journalists and photojournalists who were the first people to ever expose the horrors and atrocities of war in such a vivid and graphic way.

To say that investigative war reporting is dying would imply that it will, one day, be dead; this seems unrealistic considering the level of current enthusiasm for investigating and reporting on the truth matched with the capacity and potential for modern technology to help it happen. Granted, there are obvious signs of stress and pressures on the industry making the practice of investigative war reporting a difficult one. On the other hand, the enthusiasm of reporters, editors, audiences and even the legal community indicates that the world is not ready to let investigative war reporting die. There are, of course, obstacles to good investigative journalism (the key word being investigative) but there always have been, as was shown through both case studies in the Viet Nam War and the Iraq war. Media handling, tougher laws, less military co-operation, the embedding of journalists, the increased physical harm are all worthy adversaries but not strong enough. It’s true, the media did initially fail in its many investigative responsibilities to society but this can be said of both wars. Important to consider is the fact that the media is no longer failing and this is evident in a range of examples such as the exposure of Abu Ghraib, the continuing work of the Iraq Body Count, the leak of military footage depicting the killing of innocent people and more. Not only this, but the mere logistics of investigative reporting are vastly significant. High quality data can now be transferred from anywhere and research that used to take months may now take hours. Audiences also have access to work from all over the world including alternative voices that no longer need millions of dollars to be a publisher, capable of reaching millions of people.

This is certainly not a time to fear the death of investigative war reporting; this is an exciting new era full of change and possibilities.

Reference List

The Age, News to reveal online charging plans, May 05, 2010. No author named.
, date accessed: 25-05-10.

Barker, G (2004) Truth and Politics- a pessimist’s view, Dissent, Spring (2004), pp 12-17.

BBC news (no author noted) Legal aid for Whistle Blowing Site, Thursday, February 2008, , date accessed: 24-05-10.

Cohen, N and Steltler, B, Iraq Video Brings Notice to a Web Site, April 6, 2010, The New York Times, , date accessed: 22-05-10.

De Burgh, H (2000) Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice, Routledge, pp 191-193.

Ganey, T (2008) Saigon to Baghdad: Comparing Correspondent Experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, pp 1-119.

Gourevitch, P and Morris, E Exposure- the woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib, The New Yorker, March 24th, 2008, , date accessed: 4-05-10.

Halberstam, D, Getting the Story in Vietnam, Commentary, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1965, pp 30-34.

Lewis, C and Reading-Smith, M (January 23, 2008), Iraq: The War Card- Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, False Pretenses, Center for Public Integrtiy., date accessed: 25-05-10

Kamalipour, Y and Snow, N (2004), War Media and Propaganda- a global perspective, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford. Pp 238-239.

Knight, A, Online Investigative Journalism, Australian Journalism review, 22(2) 2000, pp 48-58

Knightley, P (2004), The First Casualty: The war correspondent as Hero and Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq, The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland. pp 527- 548.

Kumar, D, Media, War and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management During the 2003 Iraq War, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol 3, No. 1, March 2006, pp 48-69.

Mandelbaum, M, Vietnam: The Television War, Print culture and Video Culture, Fall (1982), pp 157-169.

Mcleod, D (2009), Derelict of Duty: The American News Media, Terrorism, and the War in Iraq, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue 1, Fall (2009).

Pearson, M and Busst, N (2006) Anti-terror laws and the media after 9/11: Three models in Australia, NZ and the Pacific, Pacific Journalism Review, 12 (2), 2006, pp 9-27.
Rockmore, T (2005) The Scandal of Abu Ghraib, Peace Review Issue 17, pp 307-314.

Wilcox, P, Newspapers and the Terrorism war: News Priorities, public duty and the bottom line, Australian Journalism Review, v.23, no.2, Dec 2001, pp 7-20.

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran was published in 2006 by Alfred A. Knoff Publishing in New York. Chandrasekaran was Baghdad’s Bureau Chief for the Washington Post during America’s first year in Iraq. The book won the Samuel Johnson Award, the Overseas Press Club Annual Book Award and The Ron Ridenhour Prize. It was also a finalist for the National Book Award, the Helen Bernstein Award for Excellence in Journalism and The Los Angeles Times Book Prize. The book was also included in The New York Times’ “Ten Best Reads for 2007” and the Los Angeles Times and Entertainment Weekly’s “Top Ten for 2006”. The book has also found a new audience since the release this year (?) of the movie “Green Zone” which was loosely based on Chandrasekaran’s book.

The book focused on the take over of Iraq by the Americans and specifically the operational group the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and its role in the first year of occupation. It was a deeper look into what they did or did not do in Iraq. Chandrasekan was filing a daily report for the Washington Post from Iraq in his capacity as Bureau Chief, and completed his book on his return to America.

Chandrasekaran’s book delves deeper into the work done by the American CPA. It gives substantially more information than was originally published in newspapers at the time. Focusing on how people were recruited for the CPA, what individuals and groups were trying to achieve and where it all went wrong.
b. Summary of the book’s contents.

Chandrasekaran’s chapter titling gives the reader a very good insight into what aspects of the Iraqi takeover he is focusing on and the many stories told within this one book.

The Chapter names are:
Part one: Building the Bubble-

1. Versailles on the Tigris
2. A Deer in the Headlights
3. You’re in Charge!
4. Control Freak
5. Who are these people?
6. We need to rethink this
7. Bring a duffle bag
8. A Yearning for the Old Times.

The “Building of the Bubble” looks at the CPA finding a place for the American headquarters, the recruiting of the CPA staff and the overall progress the CPA moves through. The chapter titling highlights the confusion and misunderstandings within the CPA of what their role was and what they were trying to achieve in Iraq. Chandrasekaran reiterated this in an interview after returning to America,

“The White House and the National Security Council have a responsibility to coordinate the work of various cabinet departments through the interagency process, and come up with a unified plan. There wasn’t one. There was no plan.” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

The chapter titling in the second part of the book, follows the same thread and these are as enlightening as Part One.

Part Two: Shattered Dreams-

9. Let this be Over
10. The Plan Unravels
11. A Fools Errand
12. We Cannot Continue Like This
13. Missed Opportunities
14. Breaking the Rules
15. Crazy, if not Suicidal
16. A Lot left to be Done
The second part focuses on how it all went wrong – the lack of planning, the absence of any organization, the initial lack of foresight and understanding when recruiting for the CPA. Tthis all leads to people being chosen who were not up to the task. The book does highlight some positive experiences of people succeeding in their projects even if they had to fight extremely hard to get these successes.

The main problem, according to Chandrasekaran, was the leader of the CPA Paul (Jerry) Bremer and his idea of what Iraq needed. Instead of fixing basic infrastructure and basic life necessities, such as running water and electricity, the CPA was concentrating on traffic rules and copyright laws. The CPA was arrogant and insensitive to the Iraqi culture and way of life. Rather than looking at ways to advance and improve their lifestyle the CPA were trying to change the Iraq into a new America.

“There was no clear mandate, so, initially it was, “We’re going to do everything. We’re going to micromanage this country.” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

To illustrate this point Chandrasekaran draws an analogy with a broken down old bus.
“You could change the spark plugs, pour some oil into the engine, and get it moving, even though it would be belching smoke and not moving very fast. That’s what the Iraqis wanted. Now, Bremer’s approach was, “Ah, this broken-down bus — we’re going to put the bus up on the blocks, take the engine out, and rebuild it bolt by bolt. And at the end of the day, when we’re all done, we’ll give you the best bus around.” But the Iraqi people, the passengers, didn’t just want to sit by the side of the road and wait for the CPA to do that.” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

c. List any newsworthy revelations in the book.

The four relevant facts Chandrasekaran brought to light in this book and those which I also thought to be important were,

1. The total disorganisation of the CPA, and their lack of planning and co-ordination,
2. The insensitivity shown by the Americans towards the Iraqi people,
3. The initial CPA recruitment process, and how Bush chose people to work for the CPA, and
4. The CPA and the American administration’s overall lack of knowledge of the Iraqi people and the political power forces already existing in Iraq. This subsequently led to the CPA’s inability to use this knowledge in rebuilding the country

The CPA’s lack of organisation was evident throughout the book. There are many stories based on lack on knowledge, lack of equipment or just lack of understanding. Chandrasekaran uses these stories from his interviews most effectively.

“Rather than directly criticising those responsible for the strategic decision to invade, and the tactical conduct of the war, Chandrasekaran invites us to make up our own minds.
(Aburish, 2010)

It would have been so easy for Chandrasekaran to come in throwing punches and blame, but he refrained, making his writing more credible.

The second point which was evident in the book, was the insensitivity shown to the Iraqis by the Americans. By re-occupying Saddam’s palace seemed to indicate to me that they saw this as a heavy handed attempt at signaling a power transition whilst failing to recognise that the Saddam palace was a symbol of what was not needed/wanted in Iraq, thus not sending a positive message to the Iraqi people.

They then proceeded to barricade themselves in behind high blast walls (the green zone), ignoring the fact that they were in a Muslim country, and treating “the green zone” as their little patch of America.

“Let’s look at the food that they were eating in the CPA palace. Here you are, in the heart of a Muslim country, and what did Halliburton manage to serve at seemingly every meal? Some form of pork — bacon for breakfast, hot dogs for lunch. There were a number of Iraqis, who felt that this was offensive, and they complained, and their complaints were blown off… The fact that the Americans had set themselves up in one of Saddam’s palaces — look, the CPA needed to have a headquarters. I’m not going to try to say that it didn’t need a place with a secure perimeter for Americans to live and work. But Saddam’s presidential palace? Why not just board it up and tell the Iraqi people, “We’re going to keep this as a museum to the excesses of the Saddam regime.” Turn it into a Versailles type of thing, instead of setting up shop in it, which sent a really negative message to the Iraqis.” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

The third noteworthy aspect is the CPA recruitment process, undertaken by Bush and the White House. Chandrasekaran wrote that the government hired people based on their political views and how close they were to the Bush Administration. While it is understandable they would send people over they trust and believe in, it is counter productive sending people who lacked the knowledge/skills to get the job done.

“The primary criterion for a position inside the Green Zone was not someone’s relevant experience, but one’s political connections. Candidates were chosen based on their views on abortion and for whom they had voted in 2000.” (Chandrasekaran citied in Rife, 2007)

The fourth point and I think the most intolerable is that many of the people within the CPA lacked knowledge or interest in the Iraqi way of life.

“In general, these “leaders” displayed a stunning ignorance of Iraqi society. Most felt no need to study anything about its history, culture or day-to-day life. And they had little sense of the growth of resistance movements.” (Nyden, 2007)

The people in charge were not aware of the problems within the Iraqi community and were unable or unwilling to learn anything about it. This blindfold approach could only spell failure and as such be devastating for the Iraqi people.

“Instead of sending the very best people, there were a lot of people who, quite frankly, weren’t. This is not my assessment — it’s the assessment of senior officials of the CPA. The deputy director of the CPA’s Washington office told me, on the record, “We didn’t send the A-team.” Bremer himself was concerned about this and raised the issue repeatedly in secure video teleconferences…” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

d. Analysis of how the journalist gathered their material, whether it was in documents, interviews or first-hand observation.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran was a journalist in Bagdad during the first year of the CPA’s occupation of Iraq, so he had a good knowledge of what was being achieved by the Americans. His daily submissions to the Washington Post and the notes he kept from his time in Iraq, although insufficient for this book, gave him a start with the material. On his return to America he realised that to write a book he would have to re-interview CPA staff in an attempt to gain more comprehensive understanding of what happened within “The Green Zone”.

“It wasn’t until many of those people came back to America, plugged back into their normal lives, went back to their families, went back to their normal day jobs, and then began to look at Iraq from afar…. [that] many of those people became disillusioned. I like to joke that there’s a whole class of people in Washington, who worked in Iraq for the CPA, who are in desperate need of therapy. And I offered it for free to them with my notebook and a cup of coffee, or a beer. Often I sat down with these individuals for three, four, five hours at a stretch, and let them unload. And it was in those conversations, after their return to the United States, that I was really able to get and develop a fuller understanding of how the CPA operated.” (Chandrasekaran cited in Kosar, 2007)

The author’s observations contributed significantly to the book’s content however it was his ability to ask the right questions after the fact that extracted the true story. I do not think during the time of the CPA occupation he would have been able to obtain enough information to gain a full insight, and tell the story in the way he was able to as ex-CPA staff would have been fearful of losing their jobs. Following the CPA’s dissolution and Bremer announcing Iraq as a success, the CPA staff moved on to new jobs. This gave former staff the opportunity to reflect on their time in Iraq and their achievements, which created a perfect time for Chandrasekaran to turn up with notebook in hand.

“Chandrasekaran brings to life the small world of the roughly 1,500 individuals (overwhelmingly American, with a few British and others) who manned the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was lodged in the Green Zone…” (Brown, 2007)

Chandrasekaran is impartial in his observations and writings, when talking about the situation inside the Green Zone and within the Iraqi community. He was then able to clearly illustrate a connection between the CPA’s lack of organization and lack of application leading to the frustration of the Iraqi people who originally saw the Americans as a way to a better Iraq.
e. Analysis of any major legal issues the journalist faced in publishing the book.

Chandrasekaran did not seem to have any problems with legal action. This may be due to him talking to people who were willing to talk and contribute information.
He wrote the book after the CPA’s time in Iraq and so people had moved on. The public were or are now very aware the CPA did not complete what they set out to do in Iraq. Even the then Deputy Director of the CPA in Washington stated they did not send the “A team”.
Chandrasekaran is not writing anything new. He is however giving a very balanced insight and expanding on existing knowledge. When Chandrasekaran writes about the CPA and the people within it, he does not write in an aggressive manner. It is very matter of fact and he believes the people who went there had the best intentions, but lacked the knowledge to succeed.
For these reasons, I would suggest this is why Chandrasekaran had no problems in releasing the book.

f. Analysis of any particular ethical issues the journalist faced, either in gathering material for the book or in how they represented people and events in the book.

Chandrasekaran has gained information from his own first hand knowledge (having lived in Iraq) and from interviews and information given by former staff of CPA, a group that has since disbanded.
This, I think, means he has acted ethically, as far as I am aware, he was not stealing information, it was volunteered.
He has also written the book in a style, which does not always require an interviewee to be named and possibly some sources have requested not to be named. His even-handed approach to presenting the detail in this book would also contribute significantly to reducing the instance of ethical issues arising from these writings.
Bibliography

This is a good bibliography Louise.

ABURISH, Saad K. “Ignorance is no excuse.” 24 Mar. 2007, Spectator, Literature Resource Center. Web. 13 May 2010

BBC, November 2008, Samuel Johnson Award, Retrieved 24th May 2010 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/books/features/samueljohnson/index.shtml
BENNETT, Alf & LAMBERT, Louise: Reviews: Books, 18 August 2007, Birmingham Mail, Birmingham Post & Mail Ltd

BENNETT, Phillip: The Press: Too Far From the Story?, 6 June 2004, The Washington Post, The Washington Post Co.
BLOCK, Melissa: Could American-Style Federalism Stabilize Iraq?, 26 October 2007, National Public Radio

BROWN, Carl, L.: Middle East – Iraq in Fragments: The Occupation and Its Legacy.(Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone)(Brief article)(Book review), 1 January 2007, Foreign Affairs, 172: Volume 86; Issue 1, Council on Foreign Relations

CHANDRASEKARAN, Anam in running for Guardian award, 1 November 2007, Indo-Asian News Service, HT Media Limited

CHANDRASEKARAN, Rajiv: As Handover Nears, U.S. Mistakes Loom Large; Harsh Realities Replaced High Ideals After Many Missed Opportunities, 20 June 2004, The Washington Post, The Washington Post Co.

CHANDRASEKARAN, Raji: Focus on Iraq: American-Led Occupation Fails to Fulfill Its Goals -Undertaking Stumbles On Inadequate Resources, 21 June 2004, The Washington Post, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

CHANDRASEKARAN, Rajiv: Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Bourne Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass is filming this year’s winner of the…,28 October 2007, South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong.

CHANDRASEKARAN, Raji: Imperial Life in the Emerald City: The Green Zone, Alfred A. Knoff, New York, 2006

CHANDRASEKARAN, Rajiv, 2006, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: The Green Zone, retrieved 24th May 2010 from http://www.rajivc.com/

CHANDRASEKARAN, Rajiv, Who Killed Iraq? 1 September 2006, Issue 156; ISSN: 00157228, Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

CHESTER, Rodney: Lights, action, fire!, 13 October 2007, The Courier-Mail, News Ltd

CHILDERS, Doug: History and politics – and two very different works of fiction, 23 December 2007, Special Correspondent, The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond Newspapers Incorporated

Chronicles of war; The war in Iraq is still continuing, but Hollywood is wasting no time in
churning out an onslaught of films that zero in on touchy issues, 27 July 2007, TODAY (Singapore), TDAYSG, AM N PM, MediaCorp Press Ltd.

CIEPLY, Michael, Hollywood and Iraq: Mining drama of war, 27 July 2007, International Herald Tribune

DAVIES, David: Interview: Journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside, Iraq’s Green Zone,” discusses his experiences in Iraq’s Green Zone, 19 September 2006, NPR: Fresh Air, National Public Radio, Inc.

DUFF, OLIVER: Pandora, 20 November 2007, The Independent, Independent & Media PLC

FINLEY, Brluce: Inside “Green Zone,” many shades of gray, 24 October 2007, Denver Post

GARRY, Stephani, NORTH Pinellas: Two journalists fill in picture of Iraq, 29 July 2007, St. Petersburg Times.

GORDON, James, A funny way to save iraq. Book says Kerik Grandstanded, then left Baghdad, 21 September 2006, Daily News, New York

HABERMAN, Doug: Journalist ; I saw U.S. misjudge what Iraq needed // REPORTING FROM BAGHDAD; Hope turned to disillusionment as the occupation continued, 24 October 2007,
The Press-Enterprise.

HOOVER, Bob, Books as battleground publishers pouring out volumes on the issues of the day, 25th June 2006, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Post Gazette Publishing Company

HOWE, Kevin , Journalist addresses World Affairs Council on failure in Iraq, 25 October 2007, Tribune Regional News

KENNICOTT, Phillip, Movies don’t usually go by the book, but sometimes that’s not such a terrible crime, April 4, 2010, The Washington Post, The Washington Post Co.

KOSAR, Kevin, “There Was No Plan”: An Interview with Rajiv Chandrasekara, November | December 2007, Public Administration Review.

LEVINE, Corey, Baghdad diary: Life outside the Green Zone, 30 July 2007, Indo-Asian News Service, HT Media Limited.

MARTIN, Michel – host, Author: Contractors in Iraq Should Be Held Accountable, 20 September 2007, National Public Radio

METACRITIC, 2009, Best of 2006, Retrieved 24th May 2010, retrived from http://www.metacritic.com/books/bests/2006/toptens.shtml
MENON, Kesava: Travesty of democracy, 28 August 2007, The Hindu, Kasturi & Sons Ltd

NEW YORK TIMES, 2007, Top Ten 2007, 24th May 2010 retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/review/10-best-2007.html?_r=1
NYDEN, Paul J., BOOK REVIEW INSIDE THE GREEN ZONE, AND OUT Pair of books captures tragic destruction of Iraq’s human potential, 10 June 2007, Charleston Gazette

OVERSEAS PRESS CLUB OF AMERICA, 2006, The Cornelius Ryan Award 2006, retrieved 24th May 2010 retrieved from http://opcofamerica.org/awards/cornelius-ryan-award-2006
RIFE, Susan L: Dysfunction in ‘safe’ zone of Baghdad ; Washington Post editor’s accounts provide a surreal counterpoint to the realities of U.S. occupation, 30 December 2007, Sarasota Herald-Tribune

STAFF, P: Wash Post’ Excerpts New Book on Iraq by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Editor & Publisher, EDPB, VNU eMedia Inc

SULLIVAN, Elizabeth, Iraq intelligence tripped on a self-serving fraud, 24 September 2006, The Plain Dealer

The book, Standard Operating Procedure, A War Story, was published in 2008 by American author and journalist Philip Gourevitch and American film director Errol Morris. After the 2001 September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration waged its war on terror announcing it would deploy American troops in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, in an attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. This led to the re-opening of Hussein’s former death chamber, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, which sparked a cataclysmic chain of events involving the United States military and the leaking of thousands of incriminating photographs in 2004. This worldwide news event prompted filmmaker Morris to produce a movie on the atrocities that took place in Abu Ghraib, which attracted five award nominations and received the Silver Berlin Bear award at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2008. Alongside release of the film, Gourevitch worked with Morris and released his own in-depth book, of the same title. Much like Morris’ work, Gourevitch’s book was met with exceptional sales, praise and reviews from critics across the globe and in a stark contrast, also offended angry and hurt Americans.

(2) STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE CONTENTS

The book is appropriately divided into three parts, Before, During and After. The Before component explores in detail the work that went into preparing the United States military for the opening of Abu Ghraib, the documents that were circulated concerning the Geneva Conventions, Military Intelligence policies as well as a brief interlude of what is to be expected with accounts of deaths occurring at the United States prison camps. The reader is introduced to a series of individuals who have either very little or much more to do with the thickening of the plot in later chapters.

The During section of the book proves to be the most detailed and the catalyst for the shocked reactions of readers, including myself. The depiction of the horror that took place and the insider perspectives from the soldiers involved in the Military Intelligence unit of the Abu Ghraib prison portrays a dark and almost surreal reality. Soldiers who had been condemned as perpetrators of evil are given names. The structure and presentation style of Gourevitch’s journalism allows the reader to identify with these faceless entities on a more intimate level. As the chapters progress, the fragments of detail given begin to come together and produce shocking revelations of the United States Army’s negligence and sheer inability to cope with the large number of prisoners that US military forces had rounded up in a desperate bid to quash uprisings in post-war Iraq. The underlying message suggests that the United States military’s presence in Iraq is questionable, perhaps almost unwarranted. The lack of guidelines and warped? ideas of what is the acceptable treatment of prisoners becomes apparent when the prisoners are paraded in humiliating fashion with little being done to correct the wrongs that are being committed. Their admissions to never having received any set rules or standard operating procedures provides further weight to the argument that the planning and operation’s of Abu Ghraib were all wrong. Furthermore, the most shocking element to these tragic occurrences is that soldiers, who claimed that it was to ‘prove’ what was really going on, documented these accounts by taking thousands of photographs. Specialist Sabrina Harman, Corporal Charles Graner and Staff Sergeant Ivan “Chip” Frederick were behind the images and along with the soldiers in them, became victims of their sick objective to illegally document what was going on Tiers 1A and 1B of the prison.

In the After component, Gourevitch likens the story of Shakespeare’s Othello and the use of ‘ocular’ proof to determine everyone’s fate who is involved in the scandal. And in fact, much like in the story of Othello, it is the ocular proof that seals the fate of the implicated soldiers who become the victims of their own demise, their own stupidity. Special Agent Brent Pack, who was the lead forensic examiner of the computer crime unit of the U.S Army Criminal Investigation Division, and the man responsible for judging the context of each photograph said, “In all my years as a cop, I’d say over half of all my cases were solved because the criminal did something stupid. Taking photographs of these things is that one something stupid.” (Gourevitch and Morris, p: 267) As the chapter progresses, the reader learns of the sentences that are given to each of the perpetrators as well as the disturbing cover-up tactics that the United States Army employed to shield themselves from any liability. Despite the army’s efforts, the reader is able decide for themselves who really is responsible, despite it never being spelt out. The crucial elements of war are hidden behind a hideous mask that behind it reveals the many faces of incompetent, mismanaged and ill-advised faces that we know are responsible but will never be brought to justice.

(3) NEWSWORTHY REVELATIONS

Once the photographs from Abu Ghraib were leaked to the public, the world was left to interpret the context of the images and pass judgement on the soldiers that were in them. One of the most famous photographs shows a 20-year old Lynndie England holding a prisoner on a leash who is a lifeless and collapsed figure on the ground. Miss England fast became the poster girl for those opposing the war and along with several other images, the soldiers in them, or responsible for them, were publicly and figuratively crucified without ever knowing what really went on behind the lens or outside the frame of the photograph.

What proved to be the newsworthy elements were that people were unaware of the context of the photographs and that Miss England was asked to pose next to the prisoner and hold the leash by her then boyfriend, Corporal Charles Graner. She was not dragging him as many had suggested and the photograph only lasted for a few seconds. Also among these revelations were the documents that circulated between the chains of command issuing so called “standard operating procedures” and references to the Geneva Convention, which were never clearly defined. Revised and edited documents were released only after the images were leaked and any responsibility the United States Army, President Bush or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had assumed had been forfeited because of them.

It was revelations like these that became the newsworthy elements, more so than the photographs, it was the negligence and the so-called policy documents that should have come to the fore more than the acts committed in those photographs.

(4) PART ONE ANALYSIS – INFORMATION GATHERING

In gathering information for this book, Gourevitch credits the anonymous individuals who leaked the shocking information to the world. In his intriguing interview at the Melbourne Writer’s Festival in August of 2008, he goes on to say; “people who leak are the great public servants often.” The complete transcripts of Errol Morris’ interviews run to some two and a half million words. Working with all of the individuals who were interviewed to corroborate their accounts against one another as well as external documents is what Gourevitch describes as “the authors’ determination to represent the story of Abu Ghraib as truthfully as possible.” (Gourevitch & Morris, p. 284)

Errol Morris conducted the initial interviews and he provided Gourevitch with the lengthy material. This meant that he was able to consult Morris on the substance, the meaning as well as the true to form statement without having to deviate from what was intended in the response or having to leave it to interpretation.

Fellow journalists and investigative reporters Seymour Hersh, Jane Mayer and Mark Danner also played a role in contributing to the development of the book. Official documents which were shared with other journalists and investigators provided further help.

Gourevitch read through previously secret policy documents, memoranda, interrogation rules, military correspondence, investigative findings and sworn statements which were made publicly available but as he says a lot of credit should be given to the leakers.

Transcripts of lengthy interviews conducted by agents of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division with Charles Graner and Ivan “Chip” Frederick were also provided. These were included in the book but not the movie. All direct quotes were taken from those interviews and the sheer dedication and devotion to remaining as objective as possible is clearly evident. Gourevitch’s work is to be admired and revered and the countless hours of research and patience were necessities in order to produce such astounding journalism.

Those who were interviewed for Standard Operating Procedure between October 2005 and November 2007 were, Joe Darby, Javal Davis, Ken Davis, Gary Deland, Tony Diaz, David DiNenna, Tim Dugan, Jeffery Frost, Megan Graner, Sabrina Harman, Vic Harris, Steven Jordan, Hydrue Joyner, Janis Karpinski, Roman Krol, Mary Mapes, Lane McCotter, Brent Pack, Jeremy Sivits and Andrew Stoltzman. Additionally, the partners of the army personnel and other characters pertaining to the story were also interviewed to provide further context but were not included in the narrative.

(5) PART TWO ANALYSIS – THE RAMIFICATIONS OF PUBLICATION

The New York Observer appropriately offered the following chilling review; “Philip Gourevitch’s exemplary book will take its toll for years.” This is an indication of how seriously the contents of this book have been taken and the effect it has had on the reputation of the United States, the George W. Bush administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Despite all of their efforts to shift the blame and refute the onus of responsibility, the ramifications of publishing such a book has damaged their credibility. President Bush apologized to the world about the incident and the meaning behind their management and motive for their ‘war on terrorism’, lost.

(6) PART THREE ANALYSIS – THE ETHICS OF PUBLISHING

In choosing to pursue the story of the atrocities that occurred at Abu Ghraib, Gourevitch told The Age’s (then) media and communications editor, Matthew Ricketson; “I responded like many others at the time, thinking it was a huge story that would shape the political campaign, but after a little while it just disappeared.” His reference to the disappearance of it coincided with the Bush Administration’s and the United States Army’s attempt to cover up the scandal that would have severe implications for the White House and the United States Army and the United States Defense Department. Publishing such a book would seriously harm all three of the aforementioned bodies and if it were not for the constant shift in blame, the “butt covering” and repeated denials, the convicted soldiers would not have borne the world’s wrath. During the publishing process Gourevitch was made to consider the effects his in-depth findings would have on the American public, his colleagues, the United States Government and Army as well as the overall perception of the United States in the world’s eyes. It was also important to represent the facts as they were, to not sensationalize the story and to represent the people being interviewed as objectively as possible. From a reader’s perspective as well as the reviews of readers, there is the uniformed belief that this was achieved.

(7) CONCLUSION

In reading Standard Operating Procedure, one is exposed to the great atrocities that took place in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib, the mismanagement of the war in Iraq and in the prison by the United States Military as well as the untold truths of what really went on behind the photographs, in the prison walls and in the minds of the convicted soldiers. We are introduced to a life and world so impossibly foreign to us that without documented evidence, would have sounded like an outlandish tale designed only to shock and disgust. The only flaw in this thought is that the things that did go on were actually true. It is a truly outstanding piece of work by Philip Gourevitch, which is a testament to his talented and dedicated journalism that leaves the reader feeling a string of emotions, courtesy of great and objective story telling.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amazon, 2010, Customer Reviews: Standard Operating Procedure, viewed on http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B003156B8Q/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

New York Public Library, 2010, Standard Operating Procedure: Philip Gourevitch & Errol Morris , Moderated by Carne Ross, retrieved from http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/standard-operating-procedure-philip-gourevitch-errol-morris-moderated-carne-ross

Ricketson, M 2008, The Age, Drawn to trouble, viewed on http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/drawn-to-trouble/2008/08/14/1218307120793.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

The Monthly, 2010, Standard Operating Procedure with Philip Gourevitch, Julian Burnside and Gerry Simpson, retrieved from http://www.themonthly.com.au/standard-operating-procedure-philip-gourevitch-julian-burnside-and-gerry-simpson-1255

The Internet Movie Database, 2010, Standard Operating Procedure, viewed on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896866/awards

The Internet Movie Database, 2010, Standard Operating Procedure Award Titles, viewed on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896866/

The President’s Men
• Alfred C. Baldwin III Security guard, CRP
• Alexander P. Butterfield Deputy Assistant to the President, aide to Haldeman
• John J. Caulfield Staff aide to John Enrichment
• Dwight L. Chapin Deputy Assistant to the President, appointments secretary
• Ken W. Clawson Deputy Director of Communications for the White House
• Charles W. Colson Chief Counsel for the President
• Kenneth H. Dahlberg Deputy Director of communications, the White House
• John W. Dean III White House Counsel
• John D. Ehrlichman Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
• L. Patrick Gray III Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
• H.R. Haldeman White House Chief of Staff
• E. Howard Hunt, Jr. President’s Special Investigations Unit
• Herbert W. Kalmbach Deputy Finance Chairman CRP, personal attorney to the president
• Henry A. Kissinger National Security Advisor
• Richard G. Kleindienst, Attorney General
• Egil Krogh, Jr. Head of the President’s Special Investigations Unit
• Frederick C. La Rue Deputy Director CRP, aide to John Mitchell
• G. Gordon Liddy Finance counsel, CRP
• Clark MacGregor Campaign Director, CRP
• Jeb Stuart Magruder Deputy Directory CRP, former Haledmen aide, former Deputy
Director of Communications for the White House
• Robert C. Mardian CRP political coordinator
• John N. Mitchell Campaign Directory CRP, former attorney general
• Gerald Warren White House Press Secretary
• David R. Young Special assistant at the National Security Council
• Ronald L. Ziegler White House Press Secretary
• Robert C. Odle, Jr. Director of Administration and Personnel, CRP
• Kenneth W. Parkinson CRP counsel
• Herbert L. Porter CRP organizer and former White House aide
• Donald H. Segretti, Political operative for CRP
• Hugh W. Sloan, Jr. Tresaurer, CRP; Former aide to Haldeman
• Maurice H. Stans CRP finance chairman
• Gordon C. Strachan Staff assistant to Haldeman
• Herbert G. Klein Scheduling Director CRP, former aide to Haldeman
• Powell Moore Deputy Press Director, CRP
• Kenneth Rietz Youth Director, CRP
• DeVan L. Shumway Director of Public Affairs, CRP, Former white hours press aide

The Burglars
• Bernard L. Barker
• Virgilio R. Gonzalez
• Eugenio R. Martinez
• James W. McCord, Jr.
• Frank A. Sturgis

All the President’s Men was written and published in 1974 by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (pictured at the time), as a third person narration of their investigation into the burglary at the US National Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex, and the subsequent cover-up which was even traced to then President Nixon himself. When it was published by Simon and Schuster, it became one of the fastest selling hardcover books in American publishing history, and was the New York Times number one bestseller. Their book also won the newspaper Woodward and Bernstein wrote for, The Washington Post, a Pulitzer Prize.

The third person narration, as well as making this extraordinary book read like a crime-thriller, rather than a standard work of non-fiction, explores the investigation that both Woodward and Bernstein did, as well as their feelings and thoughts whilst they were working on the story. All the President’s Men is the background and details of what the men went through to write the numerous stories for their newspaper during their long and intensive investigations.

The 1970s in the USA were a volatile time; the cold war carried on, the Vietnam War had left the people disillusioned with politicians, and society appeared to be increasingly paranoid. The dreams of the 60s were far behind, and a culture of fear was taking over.

The story started when Woodward was assigned to report on a break-in at the Watergate Complex, by his editor Harry Rosenfeld. Five men had been arrested carrying electronic gear and photographic equipment. However, once he had done some background checks and attended the court hearing for the five men arrested, Woodward quickly discovered that there were ties to the CIA and that the incident appeared highly suspicious. Bernstein had also started working on the story, being one of the political writers for the paper. They started working together, occasionally having to fight their editors to be allowed to continue.

What they found was a conspiracy within the Republican Party to infiltrate and spy on the Democratic Party. A trail of money and personal ties led them from the five men who were arrested for burglary at Watergate to some of the top men working at and for the White House. Money which was donated to the Committee to Re-elect the President, or the CRP, was being diverted through a number of bank accounts and companies. This was then used to pay for espionage and clandestine activities.

It was also revealed that White House itself was being bugged, with the knowledge of President Nixon himself. A number of these tapes had damning evidence about goings-on in the White House, and were to be used as evidence, but some contained suspicious and long erasures.

The resignation of Nixon is often at least partially credited to the work of Woodward and Bernstein, but Bernstein still says “To say that the press brought down Nixon, that’s horseshit,” he says. “The press always plays a role, whether by being passive or by being aggressive, but it’s a mistake to overemphasize the media’s coverage.” (Woodward Bernstein? in Feldstein 2004.)

How exactly Woodward and Bernstein conducted their investigation and got their information where few others were even bothering is an example of investigative journalism that is still held to this day up as an exemplar of how it should be done. “By tenacious tugging at the loose ends of the Watergate tangle, they helped unravel the whole sorry web.” (Gaines 2003). They began with the basics; calling in contacts, ringing people who worked in the courts and police contacts, following the threads that didn’t add up.

From there it was a great deal of paper chasing; a comment from a contact of Bernstein’s who had once worked in Hunt’s office led to hours sifting through all the thousands of request slips in the Library of Congress. This is indicative of the intensity that Woodward and Bernstein exhibited during their investigation. Bernstein for example sat all day outside the office of Martin Dardis, head investigator for Dade County District Attorney, in the hope of seeing subpoenaed documents. He eventually got to see the documents, and that led them even further through their questions.

The most notorious they got information was through the use of Woodward’s contact Deep Throat clumsy sentence. Deep Throat, announced as Deputy Director of the FBI Mark Felt in 2005, has become cliché in the journalistic world. The clandestine way in which Felt monitored Woodward’s home in order to make contact with him is both impressive and disturbing; Woodward never knew how Deep Throat kept track of his paper and balcony, through which they communicated.

Although Deep Throat was able to give them leads and hints, saying things like “Check every lead,” and “Just follow the money,” (Bernstein and Woodward, 1974, p132) and although he would confirm their information, he did not give them new information, nor was he ever quoted in their stories. Working only in deep background was a difficulty for their sense of justice and fairness. Woodward and Bernstein both admitted that they “had gone through periods of apprehension about whether the foundation of their reporting—largely invisible to the reader—was strong enough to support the visible implications.” (Hentoff 1974).

One ethical dilemma explored in this book is how much right does a reporter have to do what Woodward and Bernstein did, simply because they are a reporter. They considered the ethics and legalities of their actions, but it was not as important as getting a good story. “They themselves were not interested in the ethics of what had been done- they were not looking to outline sin or inequity, but simply followed those lines of inquiry that revealed a deeper and darker secret…Ethical concerns are not lacking, but the pressure of a competitive press is clearly a more realistic guarantee of fair coverage.” (Gaines 2003)

When using a contact in the telephone company to get records of conversations, Bernstein felt uncomfortable; “It was a problem he had never resolved in his mind. Why, as a reporter, was he entitled to have access to personal and financial records when such disclosure would outrage him if he were subjected to a similar inquiry by investigators?” (Berstein &Woodward, p 12). Indeed, in the USA “The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press has rightly objected to telephone companies giving government investigators access to journalists’ telephone records. To what extent—in this and other matters—does “the people’s right to know” entitle a reporter to invade other people’s privacy in this way?” (Hentoff 1974) So occasionally Woodward and Bernstein acted unethically in order to surmount the obstacles in their way.

Woodward and Bernstein approached members of the Grand Jury, who were themselves bound not to reveal any information about the case they were sitting before, or to talk to reporters. They checked with their own newspaper’s lawyers, and decided that to get information was not illegal, even though for the jurors to part with it was. So while they would be in the clear, they knowingly put those they approached in a compromised position (and the way they got hold of the names of jurors was also morally questionable). Woodward and Bernstein were excused of misconduct, but only because the judge could find that there was no evidence that any information had been disclosed. But it is clear from this that if they had been successful in getting a jury member to talk, they could have been found to be in contempt.

A further ethical dilemma they encountered regarded the pressure of daily reporting. All the President’s Men is only a summation of all that happened, but they were writing stories all the time for the daily publication, and that meant they had to publish sometimes before they knew for certain the validity of their claims. Indeed, the first story that was written on the Watergate break-in was in many ways lacking, and it is only at the culmination of events that everything is known. When they published the story on Mitchell, they hesitated before letting their editor go with it. They knew Bradlee’s philosophy “a daily paper can’t wait for the definitive account of events,”(Woodward & Bernstein 1974, p102) but they also knew the implications of what would happen if they had got it wrong “John Mitchell was not someone to trifle with.” Time pressures were constantly forcing them to publish, but it also suggests a certainty of their findings which is commendable.

It did lead to issues though: Woodward and Bernstein came under fire from White House officials, and their editors, for publishing stories without what appeared to be a sufficiently firm basis of evidence. For example, they published a story that Haldemen had been identified before a grand jury by Hugh Sloan as one of the men in charge of the fund which paid for Watergate. This was unequivocally denied by Sloan (p 183), and severely damaged the credibility of Woodward and Bernstein, as well as making them even more paranoid about whether they were being set up, and just how reliable Deep Throat really was. Bradlee recalled that it was the lowest moment in Watergate. (Bernstein & Woodward 1974)

Using anonymous sources also is treacherous for a reporter, because the motivation of the source is not apparent to the reader, or even, necessarily, to the journalists involved. They often had to consider the fact that what they were printing, particularly when trials were taking place, might in fact be just providing the guilty with ammunition or a defence they could later use. Bernstien and The Washington Post editors never knew for example who Deep Throat was, and as a man who it turns out was passed over for the position of Director of the FBI, did he had a grudge of his own that he was playing out.

They also once blew a source who was feeding them information from the FBI, even though they always promised their sources total anonymity, understanding the pressures most of them were under, and the occasional danger. While they were not proud of their actions, and justified it to themselves, “they had endangered the agents career, betrayed his trust and risked their credibility with other sources.” (Hentoff 1974). This is one of the clearer examples of the pressure and paranoia they were under, and the risks they put their sources in.

Woodward and Bernstein occasionally used trickery to get interviews and information, even though they always announced themselves as reporters for the Washington Post, and this was something that their editor frequently asked when reading their notes. When Woodward was not able to get a hotel to give him the room number of John Mitchell’s wife, from whom he wanted an interview, he used a pay phone and insinuated that it was an emergency, without actually stating so. At another point, Bernstein implied that he was connected with the FBI in order to gain the confidence, or possibly frighten a woman into giving evidence. Although these tactics were born of frustration at their lack of success, it must be said that they were not honourable moves.

Similarly, in order to get the names of the grand jurors, Woodward convinced a secretary to let him look at the list, although he was banned from taking notes. Woodward simply sneaked off to the bathroom every few minutes to write down what he had just read. This may have served him, but should he have been caught, he would most certainly have gotten himself and the clerk in a great deal of trouble.

Yet they kept themselves honest; they never paid for their interviews, even when it meant they had to pass up exclusives or invaluable leads. When the story on Alfred Baldwin broke, a key figure in Watergate, Baldwin’s lawyer offered to sell Woodward the story for around $5,000 dollars. (Bernstein & Woodward 1974, p109) Woodward declined, and the story was broken by another paper a few weeks later, for free. Baldwin’s interview made a lot of speculation real, and hurt the egos of Woodward and Bernstein and their editor Bradlee.

The legacy of All the President’s Men is what impact journalism can have on the world. After the book was published, enrolment in journalism schools quadrupled, and even now when there is a political scandal, people refer to it as a something-gate: Ute-Gate, Iguana-Gate etc. But what All the President’s Men showed is a determination and dogged commitment to be accurate, fair and above all to get to the truth that still inspires people today.

Bibliography
1. Barrett, Laurence I., 1974, Woodward & Bernstein . . . The dark side of competition, Columbia Journalism Review; Jul/Aug1974, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p14-15, 2p

2. Bernstien, C & Woodward, B. 1974. All the President’s Men. Simon and Schuster. USA.

3. Bradlee, Ben. 2005 Deep Throat Revealed: Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post, retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/01/DI2005060101457.html

4. Feldstein, Mark. 2004. Watergate Revisited. American Journalism Review, August September. Retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3735

5. Gaines, William, 2003, Untangling the Web of Watergate. Smithsonian; Dec2003, Vol. 34 Issue 9, p116-121, 5p,

6. Hale, Don. 2003. Woodward and Bernstein’s Watergate archive acquired by The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/news/2003/04/07/nr_watergate/

7. Hentoff, Nat. 1974. Woodward, Bernstein and ‘All the President’s Men’. Columbia Journalism Review; Jul/Aug Vol. 13 Issue 2, p10-13, 4p.

8. Levine, Murray . 1992, Investigative reporting as a research method: An analysis of Bernstein and Woodward’s All the President’s Men.

9. Maddox, Bronwen 2004, Shades of grey in White House, The Australian, APR 21. Retreived from http://ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=200404211010276718&site=ehost-live

10. NORRIS MICHELE, 2005, Importance of the source known as Deep Throat. All Things Considered, National Public Radio; 05/31/2005, retrieved from http://ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=6XN200505312102&site=ehost-live.

11. NORRIS MICHELE, 2005, Analysis: Recount of Bob Woodward’s relationship with Mark Felt. All Things Considered, National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=6XN200506022106&site=ehost-live

12. http://www.heroism.org/class/1970/wood.html

13. O’Hare, Joseph A. 1974, Untangling the Web of Watergate. America; 6/15/1974, Vol. 130 Issue 23, p477-477, 1p

14. Pitt, David, 2010, Strange Days Indeed: The 1970s, the Golden Age of Paranoia. Booklist; 2/1/2010, Vol. 106 Issue 11, p16.

15. Porteus, Liza. 2005. Current Press Ethics Unlikely to Enable Second ‘Watergate’. Fox News.com. Retrieved from Fox.news.com/story/ 0,2933,160755,00.html

16. Reeves, Richard. 1999. Woodward Bernstein. Supplement Centennial, Vol. 132 Issue 44, p12, 1p.

17. Schacter Daniel L. 1995 Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past. First Harvard Univeristy Press, USA

18. Weinberg, Steve, 2007, Library archives provide insider’s look at private lives of Watergate exposé team, IRE Journal; Mar/Apr2007, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p6-6, 1p

Behind the Exclusive Brethren was written in 2007, when the Exclusive Brethren’s political activities were attracting the attention of the mainstream media. The ABC’s Four Corners aired a story that year about the Brethren’s dealings with the Liberal Party, revealing that senior sect members had met with John Howard and Peter Costello and provided the party with financial support. The program also revealed a long history of the sect making significant financial contributions to conservative political parties around the world.

The revelation caused a minor political controversy during the 2007 election campaign. Labor Leader Kevin Rudd was critical of the Liberal Party’s dealings with the sect, labelling it an “extremist cult [that] breaks up families”. Greens Leader Bob Brown added the organisation was, “so heartless in excommunicating forever from their families, people who leave it.”

Howard defended the meeting on the basis that the Brethren were a “lawful organisation, and as Prime Minister [you meet] an enormous number of organisations.” Likewise, Costello defended himself adding, “[it would be a crime] if a Member of Parliament refused to meet somebody on the basis of their religious convictions”.

Although it had a history spanning well beyond 100 years, there was very little documented on the Exclusive Brethren at the time Michael Bachelard wrote the book. This was largely due to the Brethren’s secrecy and litigious nature.

For Bachelard, this was enough to make him want to investigate further. “When I tried myself to contact them… I just met this stone wall… journalists are paid to be curious and this piqued my curiosity,” he says.

He says in the text that his interest in the sect was initially sparked by, “an innocent enough question from [his] editor: would the Exclusive Brethren be participating in the Victorian State Election?”

“The answer, I quickly discovered, was ‘yes’,” he wrote. His subsequent news article prompted a ‘blizzard’ of responses from people whose lives had been affected by the Brethren.

“I felt that there was a really interesting conjunction between the terrible personal stories I was hearing about how badly people were being treated by this group and the fact that they seemed to be so politically well connected,” he says.

Summary:

Behind the Exclusive Brethren covers a great deal of information about the sect and their place within Australian society. Whilst the catalyst for Bachelard’s investigation was the sect’s political connections, the text goes well beyond that one aspect.

It discusses all the interconnected aspects of Brethren life, including its past, theology, leadership and business practices.

A reccurring theme through the text is the doctrine of separation, the theological position of the Brethren which states that its members should stay separate from the ‘impurities of the world’. In practice, this means followers cannot access mainstream media (such as the internet or television), eat with ‘worldly’ people or have membership with any ‘worldly’ groups, such as insurance agencies or trade unions.

The worst effect of the doctrine is that ex-members (whether they are excommunicated or leave themselves) are cut off from family and friends still in the sect. Children are told their ex-Brethren parents are ‘wicked’ and efforts of ex members to reunite with loved ones are met with slammed doors.

The text also deals with the business savvy nature of the sect’s current leader Bruce Hales. Within the Brethren is a sophisticated network of corporations. These companies provide each other with financial support (at no interest) and are centralised by a Brethren organisation which leases its equipment to the businesses.

Built into this network are Brethren schools (who also receive significant contributions from the Federal government), logistics companies and even healthcare funds.

Their political campaigning is covered extensively in the text, quoting documents sent between the sect and politicians as well as noting where special policy changes have been made for them.

The Brethren’s litigious nature is discussed towards the end of the text, detailing how the sect has used the legal system to get their way in defamation actions and child custody proceedings. Bachelard notes that the Brethren have a large fund set up to bankroll legal proceedings, which was significant for him given the potential outcome of their reaction to his book.

Revelations:

For the average reader, the entirety of Behind the Exclusive Brethren is revelatory. The fundamental aspects of Brethren life, its structure and theology are unfamiliar to most Australians; details of such are likely to shock them.

The more significant revelations however revolve around the ‘conjunction’ between how people were treated in the sect and their political connections.

The text tells of several stories where families have been broken by the Brethren’s doctrine. The most significant is in the Albury chapter of the book, where a church elder sexually abused a girl. The mother of the child was subsequently shunned from the sect when she decided to take the story to police. This story alone gives a chilling? impression of what life is like inside the Brethren.

Another significant revelation is the strange anti-intellectual pedagogy that exists within the Brethren schooling system. The schools strongly discourage students from going on to university, where the lifestyle is regarded as sinful. Instead students are encouraged to go onto apprenticeships and gain technical qualifications. Topics required to be taught in State curricula such as evolution or sex education are merely glossed over.

The text goes into detail about how these schools are able to exploit legal loopholes to get maximum funding from the Federal Government.

Correspondence with Federal members of Parliament is also put under a microscope. Documents detailed how the Brethren successfully lobbied the Howard Government on topics such as school funding. In a letter to then Attorney General, Phillip Ruddock, the Brethren tried to persuade him to include a provision for what was in effect an entrenched pre-nuptial custody agreement in his ‘Parenting Plans’ legislation.

Writing Style:

Throughout the text, Michael Bachelard adopts a simple, straightforward method of writing. The book as a whole benefits from this decision, as the writing style is easily adapted to the changing mood. It provides consistency in a book that regularly jumps between emotional topics such as family breakdown and academic ones such as politics and theology.

In the more emotional parts of the book, Bachelard’s writing style has the effect of letting the stories speak for themselves. There is the feeling that he does very little on his own behalf to evoke emotion from the reader, which is the point. The text presents itself as a balanced, dispassionate and authoritative work and the writing style supports this.

Bachelard himself said the style of the book was adopted with the possibility of defamation action in mind. “I felt that the tone of the book needed to be as dispassionate and as fair as I could make it… I needed to not unnecessarily inflame anger in the Brethren,” he said.

“Even though it was something that I was angry about, I tried not to let that come through and instead just report the facts as they were because that would minimise the chance of them having a cause to sue me,” he said.

Sources:

Michael Bachelard was able to draw information on a wide range of sources, even though there was very little secondary literature on the Brethren at the time.

His initial contacts were through the correspondence he’d received in response to his articles in The Age.

“I was contacted by a former member of the Brethren who had broad contacts with the wider ex-Brethren community and led me into those contacts,” he said.

He’d also discovered a website (which is mentioned throughout the text) which was run by ex-Brethren members for ex-Brethren members. It included transcripts of Brethren sermons, correspondence between church elders and other church documentation.

However, most important for Bachelard was the website’s forum, which was set up for ex-members to discuss the damage the church had done to their lives. The forum was another significant source of contacts for him.

When interviewing ex-members, Bachelard had to be mindful of strong emotional impact the Brethren had had on their lives. “I had to be aware of the level of psychological sensitivity that many of them had, particularly those who’d lost family members, had children they hadn’t seen for twenty years and such,” he said.

“I tried to treat those people with a great deal of respect and integrity… without exception I ran by everything I was going to write about them,” he said.

The author also needed to protect his sources in a few circumstances. “The reasons for people not wanting to be identified varied from not wanting to reopen the psychological can of worms that they’d lived with to not wanting their own families who are still within the Brethren to be punished for having them speak out,” he said.

Where this would normally impede journalistic work, it doesn’t here. It is sufficiently explained in the text why people wish to remain unidentified and it furthers the notion that the Brethren exercise such a stranglehold on peoples’ lives, even after they’ve left.

Other sources range from official church documents and ministry to publicly available material such as Hansard records, case law and previous reporting on the sect.

Legal/Ethical dilemmas:

Michael Bachelard always kept the threat of defamation action in mind while writing the book. It was well documented in the text that the Brethren were litigious and had a substantial funds set aside to bankroll legal actions.

“They made threats that I was defaming them, they made a threat claiming I was in breach of a New South Wales court case, which was inaccurate, but they made the threat nonetheless,” he said.

“I was aware of the strong possibility of defamation action if I was to overstep the mark in terms of accuracy or fairness; in defamation law you are able to defend yourself on the grounds of truth,” he continued.

He therefore considered whether each allegation he made would be sufficiently provable in court. “There were a few things that I thought to be true, in fact that I was convinced were true, but that I couldn’t put in the book because I couldn’t prove they were true,” he said.

The sexual abuse outlined in the Albury chapter also presented some legal concerns. “There was a legal question about to what extent I could identify the perpetrator of the child sexual abuse… that morphed into the legal consideration about whether or not I was identifying the victims of that abuse, which is illegal under State law,” he said.

Ethically, Bachelard says he was grounded in two fundamental journalistic concepts which were, “telling the truth as far as you could establish it” and “treating interview subjects with respect”. The latter was especially significant when he interviewed members of the Brethren, knowing the way the church would be portrayed in the book.

“I had an interview with [a senior member of the church] and I’d done an on the record interview with him… I sent him a list of quotes that I’d be using as a matter of courtesy and to see if there were any corrections he wanted to make, but he didn’t,” he said.

The fact that the Exclusive Brethren didn’t (or rather, couldn’t) pursue any formal action against the author is a testament to his rigorous adherence to the journalistic method. The constant checking of facts and his fair, dispassionate reporting resulted in a piece Bachelard could stand behind and few could stand against.

Conclusion:

Behind the Exclusive Brethren is a prime example of the journalistic process. It set out to cover a topic which was obscure and largely undocumented but still of interest to the wider Australian community. The Brethren lifestyle revolves around an interconnected web of businesses, theology, bureaucracy, politics and psychological intimidation. The text covers all bases sufficiently, giving a comprehensive view of the sect.

Michael Bachelard gathered sources logically; gathering contacts from those in the know and from places populated by people who were most likely to want to speak out (like the internet forum). The circumstances of his interview subjects often required him to exercise a greater degree of sensitivity and not reveal their identities.

As a whole, Behind the Exclusive Brethren accomplishes what it sets out to do: reveal what life is like in the secretive, mysterious sect.

Bibliography:

Bachelard, M. 2008, Behind the Exclusive Brethren, Scribe Publications, Carlton North, Victoria.

Interview with M Bachelard, author of Behind the Exclusive Brethren, 25 May 2010.

Howard defends meeting the Exclusive Brethren 2007 [radio program], PM, ABC Radio National, 22 August.

Peebs.net: The Truth Will Set You Free, Peebs.net, viewed 20 May 2010, .

The Exclusive Brethren Christian Fellowship: An Open Documentary of Their Life and Faith, The Exclusive Brethren, viewed 20 May 2010, < http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/>.

The Brethren Express: Four Corners 2007, television program, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, 15 October.

Exclusive Brethren: A Current Affair 2008, television program, Nine Network, Sydney, 30 September.

E-book sales have exploded worldwide, and while sales of eBooks in Australia are still comparatively small, 2010 is the year when devices such as the iPad and the Kindle could dramatically change the shape of books to come.

Australian publishers currently face numerous copyright and digitalisation issues, but Elizabeth Weiss, academic and digital publishing director at Allen & Unwin, believes that changes are happening in the industry incredibly fast.

“Many of the issues we’re facing are ones we saw coming, the copyright issues, the sales issue, digitalization and so on, but the particular way we’re experiencing them now is changing week by week, month by month. Because there can be developments in technology or devices or software, the changes that occur then have ripple effects all the way down the line and across the world, and those ripple effects happen very fast.”

Instead of the colourful story books that we all remember from our childhoods, in a few years time parents may just be grabbing the iPad and opening up the interactive version of Alice in Wonderland, or Dr Seuss’s Cat in the Hat.

Interactive digital applications, or apps, give a more interactive version of a particular book that can be used on tablet devices such as Apple’s iPad. Books now outnumber games in Apple’s app store, with more than 27, 000 books available.

“Sometimes those apps include multimedia, for example there’s a Nigella Lawson cookbook that includes video footage, photos and such or it may just have less text but more interactivity,” says Weiss. Walt Disney Pictures has been quick to develop an Alice in Wonderland app for the iPad. It is like a virtual storybook where, according to the creators, you can “tilt your iPad to make Alice grow as big as a house, or to shrink to just six inches tall, play with the White Rabbit’s pocket watch and help Alice swim through a Pool of Tears.”

Julie Posetti, media academic and mother of an 8-month-old girl, has reservations about the new formats. She says that while her child loves to play with the interactive books on an iPhone, she becomes more engaged with the story when reading print books.

Since the release in October last year of Amazon’s Kindle, a handheld device for reading mainly text-based books and media, eBook sales figures have increased dramatically. The most popular books have been in “disposable” genres, such as crime, romance and fantasy. According to Kindle owner, Gerald Atkinson, it’s “e-ink” technology means that you can “read it for hours on end and not get sore eyes.”

E-Readers aren’t just for the tech-savvy, either: Weiss says there’s quite a demand for eBooks among older people and those with a disability.

“There are older people who are completely loving the fact that these devices, like the Kindle and the iPad, enable them to increase the font size when they’re reading. So many books these days don’t appear in large print edition but now people have access to any ordinary book and, in principle, they can read it in the font size that suits them.”

These devices are also changing the way readers physically interact with books, again adding to their appeal for those with a disability.

“Lots of people have such bad arthritis that they can’t turn the page of a book anymore, or they have a disability that makes it difficult for them to physically handle a book, and for these people a device that allows a finger turning page method is an absolute miracle,” says Weiss.

Magazines and newspapers are going digital as well. The Digital Future Project 2009, conducted by the Center for the Digital Future, found an increase in the amount of users who read online newspapers. Center director Jeffrey Cole believes the “greatest opportunities in their existence await newspapers that can move decisively online.”

The Australian also recently announced it would develop an app for the iPad that will allow readers to subscribe to a digital edition of the newspaper. Whether or not this will reduce the number of print newspapers is yet to be seen, especially with the release of the iPad in Australia delayed until the end of May. According to David Salter, editor of The Week magazine, online newspapers will just bring the length of articles down.

“Most people tend to resent having to read more than a screen full of text. The minute you start scrolling people lose interest,” he says. As such, the worry, he says, is not the devices and the death of printed press, but the actual content itself. While a digital newspaper may be convenient, energy efficient and cheap to deliver, it will not wipe out paper newspapers.

So will devices like the iPad and Kindle do to printed press what the iPod did to CDs?

Salter thinks not. “I don’t think printed press will die. Print has a perfect reputation; it will not break. It’s a bit of a miracle really. You just chop down a tree, put ink on it and people will go out and buy it. It’s been working effectively like that for years,” he says. “To say it will get wiped out is to say it’s transitional technology. Radio wasn’t wiped out by T.V., it just changed. And that’s what will happen to print.”

Print media and books are likely to coexist with digital newspapers, magazines and books for some time. New models may eventually emerge but, as Weiss says, “it’s just going to take some time.”

Many of us bibliophiles find the idea of any other format succeeding books unbelievable. We’ve in love with them as objects; the way they smell, the way the feel under our fingers. Our relationship with them is very intimate: we take them to bed with us, read them in the bath, and share them with our children at bedtime. Yet our connection with books began with the words within rather than the physical form. It may take time but we will adjust. While it may have felt funny at first to download a song rather than buy a CD, or to stream a movie rather than go to the theatre, we managed to adapt to that digital revolution, as we will to this one.

Along the way, we may even re‘kindle’ our love of words.

Basic to the Australian legal discourse is the principle that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done by the public, usually via the media. Deeply entrenched in our law, the concept of open justice means legal proceedings and information should be open to public view and access, with unrestricted reporting on open court cases. Unrestricted reporting, however, can at times obstruct the administration of justice.

Suppression orders in Australia have been described as being issued too regularly, with an apparent lack of appropriate supporting argument and reasoning behind them. They have been criticised for their scope, duration and precision and Australian courts are becoming seen to be overly zealous in protecting the identities of those who come before them. This does however seem to be largely a South Australian and Victorian problem, and raises questions as to how much do the public have the right to know about what’s going on in its courts. The majority of Australia would have been quite happy to see many people who have enjoyed the protection of court issued suppression orders behind bars. By the same token, however, the media have at times contributed to Australian tragedies; Penny Easton, Lindy Chamberlain and David Hillier being three such examples.

While there is obviously a very fine line between open justice and the right to a fair trial, the apparent increasing willingness of Australian courts to issue suppression orders at the drop of a hat is sacrificing the broader public interest for a few. Lawyer, publisher and media commentator Richard Ackland wrote in early 2006:

“The courts are singularly happy to hand out suppression orders, like lollies to children. While chief justices bemoan the trend, others further down the judicial food chain are not holding back.”

Of suppression orders issued in 2006, 2007 and the first half of 2008, the NSW media was notified of 54, jurisdictionally across NSW.

Northern Territory statistics indicate 48 suppression orders were handed out over the same time period; no statistics are maintained by court registries in Queensland or the ACT.

A 2008 report of the review of suppression orders commissioned by Australia’s right to know, was made aware of one suppression order handed out in Tasmania in recent times.

By stark comparison, South Australian Supreme and District courts from 2006 – June 30 2008 saw 549 orders handed down. Most orders did not cite a date of expiration, neglecting to apply duration to the order by using the term “until further order”.

Despite a requirement to state “full particulars for which the order was made”, many South Australian orders lacked clear reasoning as justification for the suppression.

While the Victorian Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal issued 168 orders between them, and the Magistrates court 219, the Victorian County Court led the way with 240 orders handed down from 2006 – mid 2008.

Over 25 per cent of the 66 suppression orders made in the County Court in the six months to June 30 2008 were blanket prohibition orders stopping all reporting until further order.

Western Australia saw a total of 110 suppression orders recorded in 2006, 102 in 2007 and 75 in the first six months of 2008. 32 per cent of these orders were in sexual assault cases.

While no national pattern emerges, some lawyers suggest that a culture has developed in Victoria in recent years for lawyers to ask for suppression orders. Partner at Minter Ellison Melbourne, Peter Bartlett likened the current situation of suppression orders within Australia to a minefield for journalists and media lawyers.

“According to Marco Bass from the ABC there is something like 1200 suppression orders currently enforced today. Now that is a legal minefield for the media and it is extraordinary how rare it is for the media to breach a suppression order”, he said.

“…a concern is that the media does not have the deep pocket it has had in the past so it isn’t in the same position to challenge a lot of these suppression orders and so the theory is that the number of suppression orders will continue to grow.”

Court reporter for the Canberra Times, Noel Towell, explained that journalists are ready to fight suppression orders which have no reasonable grounds.

“… if you want a suppression order we will oppose them if we think that there are genuine grounds for them to be opposed…I’ve heard of lawyers sitting down with clients and promising that they can keep their names out of the papers, and we don’t want a situation like that developing” he said.

There is no doubt that the media possess, and at times misuse, great social power. Often in the unrestricted reporting of court cases, dangerous, embarrassing or distressing facts may come to light, particularly in terrorism or sexual assault trials.

While the fact that suppression orders are necessary in certain circumstances is not an argument; for instance where not to endanger national or international security, prejudice the administration of justice, endanger physical safety, cause undue distress or embarrassment to complainants in certain sexual offence proceedings, or offend public decency; Peter Bartlett commented that the concept of open justice is gradually being eroded.

“There’s always that conflict between the balance of the public’s right to know and the accused’s right to a fair trial…but I fear that in Victoria in particular, that balance is shifting a little away from open justice.”

William Houghton QC, whose areas of practice include defamation, media and entertainment law, attested that striking such a balance is crucial.

“You’ve got to engage in a balancing exercise, but if it’s truly the case that publication of a matter will tend to have a serious likelihood of interfering with a fair trial, then that’s got to trump the right of the public to know, however I think too many courts assume too readily that a right to a fair trial is going to be somehow prejudiced where it’s not so.”

Media law practitioner from Kelly Hazell Quill lawyers, Justin Quill, believes that is it extremely difficult to prejudice a jury.

“Jury’s do their job… it’s more powerful when you see someone come in to give evidence and potentially be torn apart by cross examination or otherwise really stand up and appear very believable , and ultimately a jury is going to be more influenced by the actual evidence and the words that come out of peoples mouth in front of them than they are about some article…I think nearly all the time they get it right.”

Jury’s are not as fragile as previously supposed, and do not need to be cocooned from the media. Like-wise, Australia is now a digital media environment, where a wide variety of resources and information are readily available. The public is not as susceptible to media which may over sensationalise court proceedings, as they are exposed to a substantial amount of varying opinions, attitudes and viewpoints.

Do we need really suppression orders at all? Some states appear to get by passing very few. Yes judges should have the discretion to carry out their duty to run a fair trial in the public interest, however currently in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, a reasonable balance is not being struck between the public’s right to know and the right to a fair trial.

Justice is being administered behind closed doors – ‘secret justice’- when Australia should be physically seeing it done.