Jacksonville 55: Media run the line against Craig Thomson

By | | comments |

Peter Wicks reports on the old media's disgraceful coverage of Craig Thomson's emphatic court victory yesterday and reviews the weak prosecution case against him.

Channel Nine showed an ancient interview of Craig Thomson being interviewed by Laurie Oakes in their news coverage last night. (Image screenshot from YouTube)

WATCHING THE TELEVISION coverage of Craig Thomson's day in court yesterday, you could be forgiven for thinking it was just a question of how long he was going to spend in jail.

In the footage I saw on Channel Nine, they forgot a couple of words in their reporting. Little words like "allegedly" and using the words "accused of" instead of "did" for example. These words make a huge difference.

The mainstream media have come to the conclusion that Craig Thomson has changed tack with his defence in seeking a summary judgement from a magistrate. This is completely false ‒ and totally irresponsible ‒ reporting.

As I reported on 30 June, Thomson explained to me he was seeking a summary judgement when I asked him about his court appearance due the next day.

That next day the MSM caught up and were reporting the seeking of a summary judgement as a way of escaping a judge and jury.

Now they have forgotten all of that.

Also forgotten is all the reporting of how broke Thomson is, forgotten is the fuss over the account set up for Thomson's legal defence, and forgotten is Thomson's legal fundraiser this Thursday.

Also forgotten is the media's desire to see things happen quickly; they have suddenly forgotten that they were constantly bemoaning how long it was taking to have the matter finalised.

Now they seem to expect that Thomson will be able to find vast sums of money under a rock and wait around for what would likely be over a year to stand trial before a jury.

The media have taken the angle that the comment of Thomson's barrister Greg James QC that it was "very likely" that there would be few issues about the facts or charges Thomson is accused of means that Thomson is somehow admitting he did use the money for brothels and adult movies.

This is yet another disgraceful example of just making up the news to suit an agenda.

Last night, I saw they were replaying parts of the interview Thomson did with Laurie Oakes what seems like an eternity ago. In particular, the coverage focused on the part of the interview involving allegations of phone calls made from Thomson's hotel room. Thomson emphatically denied these claims while Oakes suggested that the only other option is someone sneaking in and out of his room and making calls while Thomson wasn't looking. To me, this seemed like an attempt to make Thomson look like he is either foolish or a liar.

Thomson has never suggested that he has some kind of evil conspirator lurking in dark shadows, sneaking into his hotel rooms and following him around and doing things under his name.

If, in fact, Thomson did not make the calls he denies making, I'd suggest it would be more likely that someone had amended records electronically or had the hotel staff amend them. I'm reasonably sure this would not be the first time records had been adjusted, or someone had an incorrect charge on a hotel bill.

Thomson has been adamant in his denial of the allegations regarding these expenses on his card and continues to be adamant on the matter, despite the words the media try to put in his mouth.

I contacted Thomson regarding the decision to award him a summary judgement.

Thomson was quite clear in emphasising that he is not conceding to any of the allegations made against him in regards to expenditure — not in any way at all.

What Greg James, QC, simply means is that the details of any expenditure will not need to be debated as it is irrelevant to the defence they are mounting.

Remember, there are 173 charges, the vast majority of which are for amounts less than $30. It would seem ludicrous to spend tens of thousands of dollars of money that he doesn't have and putting his family into enormous debt to argue these matters when there is a means of resolving the whole matter quickly and cheaply.

For those who don't know just how expensive the legal system is for someone in Thomson's position, the charges he is facing are for approximately $27,000; his appearance in court yesterday would have cost more than that, when preparation time and other ancillary costs are taken into account.

There are those who suggest these allegations should be aired and argued, as people want to know if Thomson did in fact spend money at brothels. I can understand that point of view, however the media and the Coalition have made sure that Thomson will always be remembered for brothel visits and credit cards. Whatever a court decides will not change the fact that the name Craig Thomson will always be a punchline.

Those who think that he is "escaping a jury" and that he would not be able to achieve "reasonable doubt" from just one of twelve jury members are forgetting the other facts that the media choose to ignore.

Craig Thomson surname on the credit card slip was spelt 'THOMPSON'.

Recent articles by Peter Wicks
Labor faction fails to promote gender equality in politics

Equality is something every employer should strive for and our Federal Parliament ...  
The plight of political staffers in Australian parliaments

All the major political parties must lift their game and treat political staffers ...  
A subsidy a day keeps the farmer in play

If Australia has an over-subsidised industry sector, it sure isn't the renewable ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support Fearless Journalism

If you got something from this article, please consider making a one-off donation to support fearless journalism.

Single Donation


Support IAIndependent Australia

Subscribe to IA and investigate Australia today.

Close Subscribe Donate