Betting on strident carbon views. They’re funsters at online betting site Sportsbet.com.au, aren’t they? Last Thursday subscribers were treated to a bizarre lecture on the defects of the carbon tax and the Gillard government via its weekly “Inside News and Views” email. Readers were told the tax would “push up the prices of goods & services”, creating a “tax on a tax” — “Great… (not!)”.

But apparently it was all a joke. PR manager Haydn Lane told Crikey the email was “meant to be satirical around a topical issue on which we have betting markets and does not represent the company’s position on the issue of carbon tax. However, we accept that political comments can be a sensitive issue and … we apologise unreservedly if anyone took offence.” Right then. Reassuringly, he said responses to the email were “used for entertainment purposes only and are not used in any way to assist in framing markets” (though the straw poll was apparently running 68% negative as of Friday).

Not that the betting company is averse to controversial advertising stunts. Last week it ran this rather distasteful advertisement in the tabloids as part of its promotion of carbon tax betting markets …

It’s worth noting the company recently took on a new marketing director from its Irish owners, betting giant Paddy Power. The new director, Barni Evans, was the mastermind behind an infamous ad campaign featuring blind footballers kicking a cat into a tree. According to The Guardian the ad was the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority fifth most complained about of all time …

All the ads urge players to gamble responsibly. If only SportsBet took its own advice. — Crikey intern Michael McGowan

Hywood hits back on ALP data story. What’s the difference between the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and The Age accessing an ALP database? Plenty, says Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood. He wrote to staff on Friday:

Colleagues,

I doubt you missed the attacks on The Age in The Australian this morning over the important story it ran recently on the ALP compiling a database of private individual information.

The Editor in Chief of The Age, Paul Ramadge sent the following note to all editorial staff at The Age this morning.

I want you to know that I fully endorse Paul’s comments, the integrity of the journalists who prepared the story and the investigative processes that led to the story.

Ethics and quality journalism are the core of Fairfax. We will not let such baseless attacks stand unaddressed.

Paul said:

“We share a vision at The Age -‐ to report in the public interest.

We do this ethically and, as we said in our editorial this morning, under the rules of a comprehensive code of conduct.

Another important aspect of the way we work is that we debate ideas, we engage each other, we listen, and we are open to the ideas of others. We believe in this process because we want our journalism to be rich and meaningful ‐- beyond narrow agendas.

This morning one media outlet gave prominence to unfounded allegations that Age reporters had hacked into an ALP database.

The reporters who wrote the ALP database story acted entirely appropriately. They were approached by someone with legitimate concerns about the database, and that source provided access. This was a story with significant public interest -‐ a powerful, highly influential organisation collecting private information on voters without their knowledge and giving campaign workers access to it.

This is public‐interest journalism.

If any staff member has any questions about the code of conduct, please see me.”

The important point to note is that the source for The Age story had authorised entry to the ALP database. Sources providing access to material to which they have legal access is at the very heart of investigative journalism. This is what whistleblowers do. To claim a moral equivalence between this entirely legitimate journalistic activity and the illegal hacking of telephones systemically practised by News International’s “News of the World” is entirely spurious.

Those who claim otherwise either don’t understand the ethical framework of journalism or are pursuing other agendas.

Greg Hywood

The columnist you can’t read. We’re not sure what rusted-on readers of The Daily Telegraph made of pages 22-23 today (the website helpfully publishes a PDF version for online readers). But point well made, Tim Blair: greater media regulation, as proposed by Bob Brown, could censor “the columnist you can’t ignore”. Some might argue (not us) that’s reason enough …

Oz scoop, except for the Fin. What’s the difference between these two front-page stories from Pamela Williams (The Australian Financial Review) and Christian Kerr (The Australian) on Peter Reith’s report to the Liberal Party? Well, Williams’ story had some more detail but otherwise not much. Still, The Oz was sure it had the “EXCLUSIVE” …

Front page of the day. The News of the World phone-hacking scandal keeps unravelling, as Britain’s top police officer, Sir Paul Stephenson, resigned last night. Also, Rebekah Brooks, who resigned as News International’s chief executive on Friday, has been arrested by detectives as a criminal suspect:

Sir Paul Stephenson turns on Cameron

“In a carefully worded resignation speech that appeared aimed directly at Downing Street, Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said the prime minister risked being “compromised” by his closeness to former News of the World editor Andy Coulson.” — The Guardian

‘Fox News Watch’ avoids News Corp scandal, almost

“Saturday’s ‘Fox News Watch’ steered clear of one of last week’s major media stories — News Corp. shutting down UK tabloid News of the World as a result of a hacking scandal. Or did they?” — Mediabistro

Cyberwar: It’s just not fiction any more

“In a speech this week at the National Defense University in Norfolk, Va., Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn announced that the United States now considers attacks on certain computer networks and systems by foreign powers and terrorists as the equivalent of a traditional attack with guns and bombs. It thus reserves the right to retaliate, both in the cyber-realm or with traditional force.” — All Things D

2011 Current Affairs taste test

“The word ‘Exclusive’ was used liberally. On Today Tonight it accompanied around half of their stories. A Current Affair also used it with regularity, but on almost every occasion it was hard to ascertain what defined an ‘Exclusive’ on either show. Does it simply mean ‘our cameras were there and nobody else was?’ Stories about car park fines, summer fashions and comparing pizzas were all ‘Exclusives.’ ACA‘s Gaga interview, which certainly felt like an Exclusive, didn’t carry the word. Comparatively, 6:30 with George Negus didn’t use it once.” — TV Tonight