News of the World:

Keith Thomas writes: Re. “Mayne: how to cross examine Rupert Murdoch” (yesterday, item 3). Stephen Mayne does not pursue the big issue: Murdoch’s “30-year reign as the most powerful person in Britain”. Murdoch didn’t get there by phone hacking.

The testimony from the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks was excruciatingly transparent in their attempt to keep attention on historic phone-hacking events, particularly the hacking of Millie Dowler’s voicemail in 2002. The main story, of course, is not “who knew what and when”, as the slick, Murdoch-like sound bite has it; it’s the cosy and productive arrangement between Murdoch’s companies and top levels of successive British governments and politicians in general.

Murdoch people were employed by governments (even police) to help those governments get favourable coverage on the evening television news and in the next day’s print media. People with a Murdoch background and some sympathy to the Murdoch worldview were framing government policy, strategy and tactics and scripting speeches and interviews. These elites relished their privileged contact with each other.

It is only when these details are exposed we will be able to see the full, sad story.

Wes Pryor writes: An organisation, run by a peculiar Australian, publishes things that some say it shouldn’t have, and that others say are in the public interest — if a bit off-colour. Complex legal arguments for the arrest and sanctioning of the company heads dominate the press. And then there’s News of the World.

So if can summarise, one company, variously listed in stock exchanges and administered (at least putatively) in accordance with relevant governance instruments, is alleged to have hacked phones, pay off the fuzz and “buy” politicians. The way I’m reading the stories, people will go to jail. That sits OK with me, but I’m just a punter.

Whereas WikiLeaks, a loose connection of scallywags that few of us really understand, didn’t hack anyone’s phone and as far as I understand it, didn’t break any rules that were invented at the time they published leaked documents.

Does NotW give some perspective to the hotheads calling for WikiLeaks and Assange’s demise? Will laws be tested in the NotW that have implications for WikiLeaks? Is it just a really good distraction? Would WikiLeaks publish documents leaked to it if they were gained by unlawful means — say for instance phone hacking?

Just askin’…

Matthew Brennan writes: One of things that has struck me about the media discourse about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal is that so much of it has been from a journalistic perspective. That is not unexpected and obviously a lot of journos don’t like Murdoch’s media empire and haven’t for a long, long time. But as always the media perspective misses things.

When I look at News International, I see a huge multinational corporation that has been run by a man, no doubt highly successfully over the years, but still a man who is now 80 years old and whose eye is no longer on the ball.

Carbon tax:

Les Heimann writes: Re. “Everyone (nearly) hates the carbon pricing scheme” (yesterday, item 1). Your editorial and Bernard Keane’s opinion on the demographics of carbon tax support (or lack of it), all contained in a flask of derision, represent the delusional frenzy delivered by a media incapable of lifting their heads above their own fixation.

As an older person, having gathered a little wisdom along the way, I caution the thoughtful to forget the polls — they don’t count right now. Forget the nonsensical and hysterical political coalition frenzy — it doesn’t count and it won’t change a thing.

Forget the media misdirection — it carries no weight at all. Don’t deride the process to reduce the level of human-driven pollution of our planet. This is about doing something to cleanse the earth (even if it’s a little bit) and it’s just a process and one built within the captive prism of a minority government and a hostile opposition.

All that is being built will come to pass — and it really won’t hurt at all. We will push on and transition to bigger and better efforts to rid the world of our own pollution. Why not applaud those who try — encourage them, thank them for at least having a go — and really mean it. Your grandchildren will thank you.

David Byrnes writes: Re: Ted Tovell (yesterday, comments). I don’t blame Ted for skipping the Prime Minister’s address to the nation when she announced the details of the tax, nor do I fault him for not reading any of the dozens of articles that were written explaining the details of the tax. But it is really that hard to type “carbon tax” into Google?

The very first result is a link to the Government’s Clean Energy Future website, which clearly explains what money will be provided to households, business and renewable energy producers. He’s also under the mistaken belief that we are personally going to be paying the tax. You would only have to “pony up” if you produce more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon.

Companies that do actually pay the tax will pass on the price, and that will be offset by the compensation. Once you get that money you will use it to buy the cheaper renewable energy instead of the more expensive fossil fuel-based energy. Also explained on the website.

A little less cynicism and a little more effort at research would go a long way to solving Ted’s concerns. Or perhaps he has fallen for the gloomy predictions of the various fossil fuel lobby groups.

I’m sure they’ve definitely got our best interests at heart (read the tinge of open sarcasm).

Alcohol:

Martin C. Jones writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 10). Richard Farmer seems not to have paid much attention to the debate around minimum, or floor pricing for alcohol. As with gambling, the problem is not with what the vast majority of Australians do, but with the problematic excesses of a few.

In the case of alcohol, it is the problem of those who purchase litres of cask wine at 30c per standard drink and proceed to destroy their health and lives. Coles, Woolworths, and IGA have already almost quadrupled this minimum price in Alice Springs by selling alcohol at no less than $1.14 per standard drink, without affecting the prices of beer, spirits, better wines, etc — the stuff the vast majority of Australians for whom Farmer is standing up actually drink.

Floor pricing for alcohol is a sensible health proposal that deserves support, not to be dismissed out of hand as coming from the “killjoy” crowd.

Greenpeace:

Martin Gordon writes: I enjoyed Justin Templer missive (yesterday, comments) on Greenpeace. But next time any Green utters anything about the need to look at science it should be treated with great suspicion in light of Green approval for destruction of CSIRO GM crops.

The outrage of scientists and researcher is entirely justified, and the evident hypocrisy of Greenpeace wanting action on climate change but to oppose the potential of biotechnology to mitigate climate change.

For a Greens MP to endorse the raid as a “peaceful protest” is astonishing. This is the modern era’s equivalent of book burning by the Nazis. What next you destroy research that you religiously oppose, where does this end, you denounce heretics, a few show trials and summary justice? This is dangerous anti-science fanaticism.

IPA:

Telstra spinner Rod Bruem writes: Re. My comment yesterday (yesterday, comments) on the Institute of Public Affairs and think tank funding disclosures, you identification of me as a “Telstra spinner” may give readers the impression that the views expressed represent those of my employer.

For the record, I’d like to clarify that the comment was my personal opinion. I was not speaking on Telstra’s behalf and it does not reflect the official position of Telstra.