I mean, Louise Milligan does purport to be a journalist, I think, doesn’t she? For instance, ABC News describes her as an “investigative reporter”; that’s a kind of journo, isn’t it?
Anyway, Issue 363 of The Sydney Institute Media Watch-dog carries an article titled:
GERARD HENDERSON AND LOUISE MILLIGAN & LOUISE ADLER – IN WHICH THE TWO LOUISES GO UNDER-THE-BED AND LACK THE INTELLECTUAL COURAGE TO DEFEND THE ERRORS OF COMMISSION AND OMISSION IN CARDINAL,
and commences:ABC star reporters Louise Milligan has a habit of sending emails which put questions to which she wants prompt responses. However, when Hendo, taking the lead from Ms Milligan, sent the author of Cardinal some questions about her magnum opus – or is it opus magnum? – the author and her publisher put out a “No Comment” comment and went UNDER-THE-BED. Now read on:
Gerard Henderson to Louise Milligan – 30 May 2017
Louise
I have recently completed reading your Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell (Melbourne University Press, 2017).
By the way, there are several references in your book to the (then) Bishop Pell walking Gerald Ridsdale to court at Warrnambool in 1993. As a simple Google test will reveal, this Ridsdale case was heard at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in 1993. [Ed. The ABC did call her an investigative reporter, I think. Maybe a course in Google could be considered at journalism schools for investigative reporters . . .]
I note that it has always been journalistic practice to send “a list of questions” to people on whom you intend to write about.
I intend to write about Cardinal in my Media Watch Dog blog shortly. Consequently, I have set out below a list of questions concerning your book. They are as follows:
At Page 4, you refer to the allegations concerning (then) Archbishop Pell’s alleged sexual assault of a choir boy at St Patrick’s Cathedral sometime between 1996 and 2001 as “George Pell’s ugly secret”. How is this statement consistent with your comments, following the publication of your book, that Cardinal Pell is entitled to the presumption of innocence? Also, what is the justification for writing at Page 227 that some of Pell’s accusers “will” be cross-examined by the Cardinal’s Queen’s counsel? – since he has not been charged.
In view of the serious allegations in Cardinal – and to the fact that you acknowledged on the ABC TV News Breakfast program on 17 May 2017 that your book is written “from of the complainants’ point of view”– what is your policy about anonymous sources?
For example, Cardinal contains references to “one senior member of a religious order” (Pg. 20), “another Royal Commission source” (Pg. 41), “one of the most senior priests on the Curia of the Melbourne Archdiocese at the time” (Pg. 51), “one Church official” (Pg. 88), “officials in the church” (Pg. 281), “a friend…who is a mother in the neighbourhood” (Pg. 290), “someone who works around the Royal Commission” (Pg. 297), “the father-in-law of an ABC journalist” (Pg. 313), “people who knew [George Pell] in his Ballarat days” (Pg. 329) – and more besides – plus the occasional “many”. The allegations at Pages 88 and 281 – which go to George Pell’s character – are most damaging. But they are unsourced.
Did you get all that?
Not a bad list is it?
Depending, of course, on your definition of “bad”. Anyway, Hendo continues:In view of the serious allegations in your book, do you believe that it is professional to allow anonymous individuals – none of whom claim to be victims – a chance to condemn George Pell in such a way that a reader has no chance of judging their credibility or motives?
What is your position on memory? At Page 101 – when rationalising an inaccurate description of George Pell by one of his accusers – you write: “Memory does strange things when it comes to visual descriptions of people”. Yet, elsewhere in Cardinal, you accept as accurate the recollections of individuals who have seen George Pell on television in recent times and claim that this is the person they came across 30 to 40 years previously.
What is your position on the use of direct quotation marks? At Page 47, you place in direct quotes the recollection of a critic of Cardinal Pell who relates – word for word – a conversation which Pell had with her cousin. This despite the fact that (i) the alleged conversation took place over two decades ago, (ii) the woman concedes to being in the room next door to where the conversation took place and (iii) Pell was (allegedly) determined that the person could not hear what he said to her cousin. This would be uncharacteristic behaviour – in view of the fact that you maintain Pell has a “steel-trap mind” and would be unlikely to speak so loudly that he could be heard between rooms while (allegedly) attempting to have a secret conversation.
Likewise, in Chapter 6 – on the basis of hearsay upon hearsay – how do you construct the precise words that (then) Fr Pell used some three decades ago? Is this professional journalism?
It does seem to be easy to be recognised as an “investigative reporter”, doesn’t it?
Responses