A Theme in Responses to Critics Found in the Twitter Feed of Matthew Franklin of The Australian


I think it’s clear what that theme is. So I present the following without comment. Matthew Franklin on Twitter.

Sep. 7 @johnvacy ah come on you conspiracy theorists. U get more depth in political coverage from the Oz than any other paper.

Sep. 26 @oneplanetmikey So Gamut exists only as a counter to the Oz? Absurd. I like Gamut. But your Oz conspiracy theory is pathetic

October 1. @Pollytics Also sometimes wrong, not based on facts and often motivated by hatred or irrational conspiracy theories.

October 2. @thewetmale agreed. This is why people who attack Oz journos as tho we r all part of some conspiracy r wrong.

October 2 @thewetmale fair enuff. But the oz’ harshest critics constantly misrepresent, verbal and fall for the great conspiracy theory.

October 3. @silvermullet Correct. Time to dump the bullying, bile and conspiracy theories.

October 6 @jayrosen_nyu You don’t really buy into the big News ltd conspiracy theory do you? Don’t you know how newspapers work?

October 6: @beardoc There is nothing for us to fear dude. That’s just a conspiracy theory. What do I care? why would I care?

Finally, Matthew Franklin, October 6: Actually, I don’t go for conspiracies and am not into attacking critics. U don’t know me, do u

UPDATE, Dec. 6: There were some replies from the account of Matthew Franklin. 

Dec. 5  @jayrosen_nyu happy to stand by those comments. They weren’t discourteous. Pity u won’t engage on issues.

Dec. 5 @jayrosen_nyu I only urge u to engage on fact. If anyone calls u on that, u attck them.

(I had asked Franklin, “Would such be an example of the courteous, unassuming reply to criticism you urge upon me?” with a link to the post you are reading now. You see, to Matthew Franklin a post like this is an “attack,” just as normal criticism of the Oz is a charge of conspiracy. There, now I have commented.)



Julian Assange Ducks the Question A Lot of Us Have About Wikileaks


It happened in a Q and A with readers of The Guardian. I am posting it to here to provide a place to comment, since it is clear from my Twitter feed that not everyone agrees. My own view is that he should have provided a serious, by which I mean a morally serious, response to JAnthony’s question. That he did not disturbs me.  

What do you think?



 I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

Julian Assange:

If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

… And if you haven’t seen it yet, here is my 14-minute video, The Watchdog Press Died; Instead We Have Wikileaks.