Select Page
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably an agenda to get George Pell. Sleaze merchant, the ABC’s Louise Milligan (as you’d expect) and her hatchet job on George Pell. Gerard Henderson eposes what for all intents and purposes, seems like an agenda 
 
Her book, Cardinal, has been out for a month or two and was pulled from the shelves today. Reading Henderson, Milligan sets herself up as judge, jury and executioner.
 
“.. As readers will note, Louise Milligan went under-the-bed and refused to answer questions concerning (i) her allegation that Cardinal Pell has an “ugly secret”, (ii) her use of anonymous sources to level the most serious charges about her subject, (iii) her attitude to accepting as totally accurate the memory of others, (iv) her policy with respect to reporting decades old recollections in direct speech, (v) her assessment of time, (vi) her allegation about Allan Myers QC, (vii) her selective reporting of George Pell’s actions when Archbishop of Melbourne, (viii) her imputation that Alan Southwell QC acted unprofessionally, (ix) her double standards with respect to the cleric George Pell and the journalist Paul Bongiorno, (x) her acceptance of what a critic of Pell “seems to remember” as evidence and (xi) her use of the words “if” and “perhaps” in what is supposed to be a book of contemporary history…”
FULL COLUMN
ABC’S LOUISE MILLIGAN GETS PROTECTION FROM FAIRFAX MEDIA BUT GOES UNDER-THE-BED AND DECLINES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM GERARD HENDERSON ABOUT HER BOOK CARDINAL
 
On 31 May, The Age published Amanda Vanstone’s regular column. This one was titled “Due process be damned”. Ms Vanstone, who is not a Catholic and is not a friend of George Pell, objected to the “media frenzy surrounding Cardinal George Pell” and added that “some in the media think they are above the law both overseas and at home”. The reference was to the on-going process as Victoria Police decides whether or not to charge Cardinal Pell with historic child sexual abuse. Amanda Vanstone added:
 
What we are seeing now is far worse than a simple assessment of guilt. The public arena is being used to trash a reputation and probably prevent a fair trial. Perhaps the rule of law sounds as if it’s too esoteric to worry about. Rephrase: how would you like to throw out your own right to a fair assessment of whether you should be charged in the first place together with the right to a fair trial if you are charged?
 
If there were a real prospect of Pell being charged one might have thought authorities would have sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a recently published book on him and certain allegations. Isn’t it normal to try to ensure a person can get a fair trial by keeping prejudicial, untested material out of the public arena?
 
Despite the fact that Amanda Vanstone is a syndicated Fairfax Media columnist, the Sydney Morning Herald did not run her piece in its print edition. Yet the SMH has run a campaign against Cardinal Pell by its “star” columnist Peter FitzSimons. A whiff of censorship, perhaps?
 
Ms Vanstone’s “recent book” reference was to Louise Milligan’s hatchet-job titled Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell (MUP, 2017). Like many journalists, Ms Milligan does not take well to criticism. So she wrote a rambling response which was published in The Age yesterday.
 
The Sydney Morning Herald, which censored Amanda Vanstone’s column with respect to its print edition, published Louise Milligan’s piece under the (prejudicial) heading “Cries of ‘witch-hunt’ ring hollow for survivors of Catholic clergy abuse” in its print edition yesterday. That’s balance – Fairfax Media style.
 
As a journalist, Louise Milligan is wont to send off detailed questions to individuals she is investigating with a demand that they respond promptly. Ms Milligan had time to write a defence of herself for Fairfax Media for publication yesterday – but she refused to answer questions by Gerard Henderson. Instead, MUP chief executive Louise Adler sought to protect her author by responding – in the vaguest sense possible – on Ms Milligan’s behalf.
 
The Henderson/Milligan/Adler exchange is published in full in today’s “Correspondence” section.
 
As readers will note, Louise Milligan went under-the-bed and refused to answer questions concerning (i) her allegation that Cardinal Pell has an “ugly secret”, (ii) her use of anonymous sources to level the most serious charges about her subject, (iii) her attitude to accepting as totally accurate the memory of others, (iv) her policy with respect to reporting decades old recollections in direct speech, (v) her assessment of time, (vi) her allegation about Allan Myers QC, (vii) her selective reporting of George Pell’s actions when Archbishop of Melbourne, (viii) her imputation that Alan Southwell QC acted unprofessionally, (ix) her double standards with respect to the cleric George Pell and the journalist Paul Bongiorno, (x) her acceptance of what a critic of Pell “seems to remember” as evidence and (xi) her use of the words “if” and “perhaps” in what is supposed to be a book of contemporary history.
 
So here is the Gold Quill Winner Louise Milligan who demands answers to her own questions. And here is the Gold Quill Winner Louise Milligan who not only declines to answer the legitimate questions of others but seeks the protection of her publisher, the formidable Ms Adler.
 
MWD will let you know if Ms Milligan ever summons the intellectual courage to reply reasonably to Gerard Henderson’s queries. Don’t hold your breath. Louise Milligan: Hatchet Job on Pell