In (partial) defence of Janet Albrechtsen

The deep involvement of News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen in what we now know is the tainted Sofronoff inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann has led to plenty of scrutiny and criticism.

The behaviour of Walter Sofronoff during the inquiry was, we now know, quite extraordinary — possibly unprecedented. It’s hard to recall any inquiry or royal commission in modern times that has been so characterised by such inappropriate contact between the inquiry head and a third party — let alone a member of the media engaged in campaigning directly on the issues being contested by that inquiry. Sofronoff’s justification that it was appropriate for him to have contact with the media doesn’t even come close to covering the sheer volume and time he dedicated to texting and speaking to Albrechtsen, lunching with her, sharing documents and evidence with her and, possibly, obtaining her input to drafts of his report.

Albrechtsen was, clearly, a player in this inquiry, not a journalist. Nonetheless, she was doing her job of securing access to someone crucial to the issue she was covering. To obtain such high-level access to someone at the very heart of one of the biggest stories of the day was, bluntly, great journalism. I’d wager many journalists around the country can only envy the extent to which she got access to the head of a major inquiry. You can rebuke the use to which she put that access but still marvel that she obtained it.

Sofronoff, if he seriously thought part of his job was relations with the media — and that’s the first time I’ve heard the head of a major inquiry claim that — had the responsibility of appropriately managing those relations to the benefit of his inquiry, not giving privileged access and, potentially, a drafting role, to one member of the media.

The problem is not with Albrechtsen, engaged in doing her job, so much as her employer. News Corp was — and is — engaged in a campaign of merciless character assassination of Brittany Higgins. It is devoted to the task of exemplary punishment of her for the damage she inflicted on the Liberal party — along with Liberal MPs and senators who continue to pursue her.

Will News Corp, or the Coalition, ever be satisfied that they have inflicted enough damage on Higgins? Or on anyone involved in the prosecution of Lehrmann (for, we must remember, a sexual assault he has always denied)? It seems not, despite the extensive evidence of the gruesome toll the News Corp campaign, and relentless litigation, has taken on Higgins.

Indeed, quite possibly there are some engaged in the campaign against Higgins who would be content to see it take as heavy a toll as possible, to ensure every staffer, every woman, every prosecutor, every journalist gets the message not to embarrass the conservative side of politics.

The Albrechtsen-Sofronoff relationship is a kind of micro version of the larger problem with News Corp. It is a malignant participant in the public affairs of the country. But it remains a cancer in our body politic because people in power allow it, and enable it. No one compelled Sofronoff to develop such a close relationship with his News Corp interlocutor. No one compels Labor politicians — Bill Shorten the honourable exception — to tug the forelock to the Murdochs, as is happening right now on the news media bargaining code. No one compels News Corp’s media competitors to treat its lies and propaganda seriously, as though it was an actual media outlet.

It is not a media outlet, but a foreign-owned political player engaged in selling hate and division. If it is a pustulent tumour, it is also a foreign body lodged here and allowed to remain. Powerful people and institutions allow the damage that this foreign company inflicts. And the rest of us wear that damage like a rash.