On page 4 of this Weekend Australian there is an article that is blatantly biased and factually wrong; in fact what the article says happened, didn't happen. The article makes up a untrue version of the events in order to facilitate the reporting of it in a biased way.
The headline is "IR shield removed for union officials". It is referring to a High Court ruling. The ruling did not alter the law, it simple ruled on the facts of the case, but the article implies ("IR shield") that the High Court has changed the Fair Work Act. It hasn't.
The first sentence of the article continues to develop the journalist's fabricated version of the story: "Union officials will no longer be an untouchable class in the workplace, after the High Court overturned a ruling that had given them special legal protections under Labor's industrial relations regime".
To begin with, the partisanship, unprofessionalism and blatant bias is not hidden with this phrase, "an untouchable class". If you are reporting a front section news story as a professional journalist you do not write the story as if you were a member of a right wing think-tank.
Now this is is our only national newspaper being factually untrue on page 4 of the high selling weekend edition. It reports that the High Court overturned a ruling that had given union members "special legal protections". But the Federal Court's ruling had not given union members "special legal protections". The Australian Newspaper, its editor and journalist is knowingly obfuscating this point with half truths and omissions.
The Federal Court ruled on the facts in a particular case, it did not "give" unionists "special legal protections". The Fair Work Act that gives them legal protections from being discriminated against because of their union activities has not been changed. The court took the view that Dr Harvey, the employer, had breached the Fair Work Act. What can be said is that the Federal Court took a broader view of the particular clause in the Act, and the High Court took a narrower view. The relevant law, part of the Fair Work Act, prevents employers from mistreating employees because they are union members. The High Court has simply ruled that the employer in this case did not do that. In another case it may rule differently, the Act has not changed.
The article goes on with its obvious bias by quoting a member of an employer group but not a member of a union. Extraordinary. It also quotes Eric Abetz from the coalition calling unionists an "untouchable class", the same phrase used by the journalist at the beginning of the article, written as reportage, as if a formal and objective way to describe union members. This only helps to confirm the view that The Australian operates as a defacto arm of the coalition's media unit.
I will finish with a quote from Rebecca Brooks, former Chief Editor of a News Limited paper in the UK, taken from text messages sent to David Cameron, the leader of the conservatives in Brittan: "I'm so rooting for you tomorrow", and, "...professionally we're definitely in this together". This is the same news Limited that owns The Australian. Why does anyone think it's any different here?