  |
20 June 2002
The Nine Network’s ‘60 Minutes’ ambushes the Catholic Archbishop of
Sydney – Part One
The ‘60 Minutes’ program on Archbishop Pell should have come as no surprise to anyone. In a previous edition of Judica Me, Deus, I asked who would be next in line for media lynching after the usual media frenzy had all but fatally wounded the Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth. Australian Democrats leader, Natasha Stott Despoja, looked at the time to be at the front of the queue.
What may postpone judgment day for Natasha is that her destruction would be a rather boring matter for the media folk whose bloodlust is only aggravated by someone so small and helpless. It would be like feeding a sardine to a white pointer. When challenging victims like Dr Peter Hollingworth and Archbishop George Pell are around, the roving attention of the media asylum will always be distracted from small fry. There is still work to do on the Governor-General. He has not yet succumbed completely despite the efforts of the professional stalkers who follow him from state to state. But the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney! Now there’s a challenge.
The right degree of venality
The Nine Network’s bosses can only have been frustrated over the success of the Murdoch people in recent years. Murdoch’s devoted vassals have shown themselves without peer in getting down and dirtying. The Nine Network had to bounce back with something sooner or later. But what? Unfortunately for them, Laurie Oakes, Nine’s star political commentator, has not the stomach for the sort of deeds necessary to match the Murdoch people. He does not like to make the running. He likes to follow in the wake of the bully delivering well-aimed chops and kicks to a stumbling victim. No, the Nine Network bosses needed the right opportunity to be matched with a person unflinching in the face of the depths required to go to, and of a similar degree of venality as they themselves possessed.
The opportunity came with someone who claimed he could nail the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney over the cover-up of child sex abuse charges. This person was David Ridsdale, nephew of the convicted priest, Fr Gerald Ridsdale, who is serving a fifteen year jail term for the sexual abuse of the young in his care. And the man to take charge of the well-rehearsed nephew? None other than Richard ‘blood on your hands’ Carleton who would not take home a penny less than $500,000 per year — plus the perks and benefits of the job, of course. Thus with Richard the front man, the multi-million dollars resources of the Nine Network were tuned and turned to tackle that one man, Archbishop Pell.
Producers, directors, cameramen, sound recordists, cub reporters, editors, sub editors, researchers, graphic designers, media tacticians, PR flunkeys, and all manner of goffer boys and girls gathered under the banner of ‘60 Minutes’ to do the work a virtual confederation of Pell-haters wanted done.
The first success was the jump they evidently got on the Murdoch people who must have been livid that they had to report the ‘60 Minutes’ coup. In fact, it looks like the ‘60 Minutes’ scoop was so comprehensive that the other media groups by and large left the running to the Nine Network on this one — apart from ABC Radio whose unbroken policy it is to put the boot into the Catholic Church at every opportunity. Rupert Murdoch could not have been pleased. This sort of work laid the foundations for his billion-dollar empire.
The deadly promo
Then came the deadly full screen black and white promo for Carleton’s performance overlaid with a deep oracular voice warning that ‘the gravest charges’ were being levelled at one of Australia’s most powerful men: the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. This compelling promo was laid on the viewer at crucial points in the following 72 hours. It was a worthy effort by Nine’s programmers, graphic arts department, and promotions people. The Nine Network’s sales reps had something out of the ordinary to sell to the program’s sponsors, promising a rich return for Network and sponsors alike. The promo fed wonderfully into the introduction by ‘blood on your hands’ Carleton on Sunday evening.
There was the familiar tick, tick, tick, followed by solemn haunting strains of orchestral music interspersed with the ringing of church bells. Over this came Richard’s sanctimonious tones mixing edited extracts with his spoken introduction. It was a moving mixture of atmospheric sounds, clipped and manipulated images, and the dire tones of Richard’s voice. There could be no doubt that it was all meant to convey an unmistakable verdict. Here is the text (minus the atmospherics) of that introduction:
Amidst sweeping, swirling, dramatic orchestral music:
(edited extract) CARLETON TO ARCHBISHOP PELL: You offered him a bribe to shut up…
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: The gravest possible charges…
(edited extract) CARLETON TO ARCHBISHOP PELL: David says he called you and told you about it…
(extract) ARCHBISHOP PELL: Well, that’s probably true…
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: ...against one of Australia’s most powerful men...
(extract) DAVID RIDSDALE TO CARLETON: His response was: ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet…’
(extract. Scene of the Archbishop during Mass) Bow your heads and pray…
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: ...the Archbishop…
(extract) ARCHBISHOP PELL: I’m quite prepared to concede that I would have been rattled…
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: ...the accusations…
(extract) CARLETON TO RIDSDALE: Did you tell him specifically…?
(extract) RIDSDALE: I told him specifically I had been assaulted by my uncle…
CARLETON: ...the anguish…
(extract) DAVID RIDSDALE: It changed everything…
(extract) CARLETON TO ARCHBISHOP PELL: Can I play you the tape, Sir…?
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: ...the damning case against the Church…
(extract) CARLETON TO ARCHBISHOP PELL: It’s from the lawyers, as you know, we act for Archbishop Pell. You offered them 50 grand…
CARLETON VOICE INTRO: ...that goes all the way to the top…
(extract) RIDSDALE TO CARLETON: I would sit and look him in the eye and say, ‘I dare you to lie to my face, I dare you…
Tick, tick, tick, tick…
Kerry and James Packer can be happy that the huge investment into the resources necessary for fabricating the right image paid dividends in this case. Granted, it is a typical set up piece with the usual cut-and-paste of edited extracts, voice over, appropriate music, appropriate graphics, etc., but the achievement comes in the skilful use of the people and resources. This was skilfully done. One can imagine great numbers of the viewing audience being led by the nose to believe the images fabricated by Carleton and his support team. Let’s now see how well the fabricated image was projected into the program.
The great aim in the image was to convey the impression that an objective investigation into a serious issue had taken place. An equally important second aim was to make it clear that the chief inquisitor, Richard Carleton, was about to present a solid case to justify and an irresistible verdict. This was all designed, the viewer was to understand, to parallel the workings of our legal system, which are meant to deal with an accused in a fair and impartial manner examining all aspects of the case and providing time and notice for an accused to consult counsel and prepare a defence. Remember, ‘60 Minutes’ has emphasised that the charges against Archbishop Pell are of the gravest sort. Here are the opening words of the program itself presented by Carleton.
It's hard to imagine a graver charge. It's against one of the most powerful men in Australia, the man who is now the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. Now, the accusation is simply this — that 10 years ago, Dr George Pell attempted to bribe a distressed young man who had been sexually assaulted by a priest, and that Dr Pell did this to cover up a potential scandal to protect his church. And, as you'll see, there's more — money offered to silence the family of two young girls, other tragic victims of a predator in the Catholic Church.
Few Catholics would deny that the accusations, if proven, would be of the utmost gravity. Thus the ordinary faithful Catholic would be at one with Carleton and the Nine Network on this. It difficult, then, to overstate the importance of a fair presentation of all the evidence, of giving both the plaintiff, David Ridsdale (I will leave the case of the two five year-old girls until a following comment), and the defendant, Archbishop Pell, full opportunity to prepare their case and answer opposing claims, and to have an independent figure who could utter judgment after an impartial review of all the detail. Few people would deny that this is fundamental to making a judgment with regard to ‘the gravest possible charges’. A jot less would be a travesty of justice.
The case presented by ‘60 Minutes’ is split into two parts. The first part gives the opportunity to the plaintiffs to present their case. The second part covers the Archbishop’s answers to the charges and the evidence as presented to him by Richard Carleton on the premises of the Catholic Church in Sydney. Let’s now look broadly at the plan of attack for the entire program.
The location shots for the case against Archbishop Pell
Part One opens up with shots of Davis Ridsdale walking down the main street of Ballarat. The camera is situated at a distance so that we have a sympathy evoking picture of a lone figure walking among the pedestrian traffic of Ballarat’s shopping precinct. This is just the opening location. The camera team moves later to a park where David Ridsdale is filmed sitting on a grassy hill overlooking the town and looking pensive. In fact, the location of the filming is changed at will to reinforce the mood of the commentary. Over the mood of the commentary and the carefully planned sequence of images we have music appropriate to both. Thus we the mournful tinkling of a piano in the beginning to accompany Ridsdale’s account of his suffering and the eerie haunting voice of a soprano to accompany the darkened ritualistic images of Archbishop Pell and the commentary on his alleged actions with regard to David Ridsdale.
It is stating the obvious to point out that a lot of deliberate planning has gone into the location shots, constructing and manipulating the sequence of contrasting images, and choosing the appropriate music. Ridsdale would have been under Carleton’s direction for the shots of him walking the streets of Ballarat and sitting in the park. He would have received his instructions and then gone and set himself up accordingly. It is possible that the location was fenced off for the moment, as would happen in any movie filming, and that some curious onlookers would have lingered for a moment. Perhaps they thought that a new soapie was in the process of being filmed in Ballarat.
It is no less obvious that much time and care were given to the set interview pieces. Quite apart from the content of the interviews, it was clear that they were discussed and planned beforehand. In particular, the many interviews with David Ridsdale, sitting comfortably in a softly shaded room with a light lampshade in the background, come across as scripted and that Ridsdale himself had thoroughly rehearsed his answers. Carleton appears as prompter of answers rather than as an interviewer. This will become plainer when I look at the content of the interviews. In brief, not labouring the point any further, the party of the plaintiff has been given all help and opportunity to prepare and present their case. It was obviously Carleton and the multi-million dollar resources of the Nine Network, and the talents of the ‘60 Minutes’ staff, who prepared and presented the case for the plaintiff. Now what about Archbishop Pell?
Setting up the prejudged defendant
Did ‘blood on your hands’ Carleton and his team put together a flattering sequence of family photos of the Archbishop, of interviews with his many Catholic admirers, details of his career, of the Archbishop sitting peacefully in the well kept gardens of his residence, of selections from public interviews that reveal an unpretentious, conscientious man full of zeal for his Catholic faith? You’ve got to be joking. Richard Carleton has shown all too often that that is not his way. His way suits the money-generating policies of the Nine Network. Like the Wild West, where the rule of law is made up of the random whims of the self-serving sheriff, such obvious aspects of natural justice would ruin the joy and the sensation of lynching the victim who has already had judgment passed on him.
Part Two of the Nine Network’s media trial has Carleton interviewing Archbishop Pell sitting at a small wooden table in a cheerless room in one of the Church’s buildings in Sydney. The cameraman has been positioned so that he can, at Richard’s direction, zoom right in on the Archbishop’s face at the crucial moments. So we have Richard with his polished performance of sanctimony mixed with an attitude of mock respect peppering the Archbishop with questions about David Ridsdale, whose entire case had been presented in the previous twenty minutes with all the sympathy and technical props one could wish in order to manipulate a jury, and Archbishop Pell looking surprised, bewildered, uncomfortable and stumbling over his answers at times. There is a good reason for the Archbishop’s manner in the interview — and it is not the truth and justice of the case that Carleton on behalf of the Nine Network has manufactured. Here is an extract from the Archbishop’s first official comments about the 60 Minutes interview:
…it is worth pointing out how I became involved in the 60 Minutes program. Last week I agreed to be interviewed by 60 Minutes on the pretext that they wanted to discuss ‘matters arising out of the American Cardinal’s meeting in Rome, the relevance of these issues to the Church in Australia…’, including the Church’s ‘…1996 initiative – the establishment of an Independent commission into sexual abuse, headed by Peter Callaghan QC.’
As it transpired, this was clearly not their intention. I accepted their offer in good faith and in line with the Church’s policy of transparency, compassion and positive action in dealing with sexual abuse issues and my policy of always making myself available to the media.
I accept the media’s role in our society of agenda setting and pursuing stories of public interest. What I find unacceptable is 60 Minutes’s blatant misrepresentation of their real intentions and the harmful and misleading way in which this story is being promoted. I believe that 60 Minutes deliberately obfuscated their intentions to help them manufacture a story reliant on misrepresentation and sensationalism, rather than the truth. Trial by media can be a dangerous thing.
In my opinion, the line between responsible and irresponsible reporting has been irrevocably crossed.
That’s right. The Nine Network’s $500,000-a-year chief media whore lied about the purpose of the interview in order to ambush his victim. Archbishop Pell had no knowledge of David Ridsdale’s accusations and no idea that their examination would be the central object of the interview.
I ask the reader to imagine if you were suddenly plucked from the street and placed in the prisoner’s dock in the nearest law court and were subjected to a string of serious charges, and the evidence for those charges was manipulated in such a way as to make it plain you were guilty. Imagine further that you were not allowed the help of professional counsel, nor the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff or those speaking on behalf of the plaintiff. Imagine that on concluding the case for the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s counsel went and sat in the judge’s chair to formalise the verdict that had been pronounced at the beginning of the trial. You would probably think that you were suddenly transposed to a place seventy years earlier in the Southern States of America and the local Ku Klux Klan boss was running the trial to satisfy the ghoulish bloodlust of his racist brothers.
The age of the demagogue has not passed
You see, it’s not truth and justice that these people are about. It’s about revenue — it’s about pouring blood money into the coffers of the Packer organisation. And compliant unconscionable flunkeys, like Richard Carleton, are there to do the dirty deeds. Even at this point in my examination, the conclusion must be that Carleton’s program is a joke in terms of truth and justice, that any semblance to a process of justice does not exist, and that ‘60 Minutes’ functions like the chief village gossipmonger to manipulate the thoughts and feelings of the population. The modern media has shown time and again that the age of the demagogue has not passed. It is a sad indication of the corrupt point at which the modern media have arrived that this sort of lying campaign is conducted so openly and so unashamedly — and that the minds of many people have been so anaesthetised by the addictive revenue-generating sensationalism that flows via print, radio and television that they lap it up in the same way they lap up the images of ‘Big Brother’.
In a following comment, I will examine the manner in which Carleton confronted Archbishop Pell with the charges presented in Part One, and the Archbishop’s reply. In this piece, I want to focus on David Ridsdale’s charges and the actual evidence that is presented to support those charges. Let me cut away all the tricks, smears and dirty associations that Carleton utilises to make his point, and go now to the essential charge and the evidence supporting it. The following is the critical exchange between Carleton and David Ridsdale. I ask the reader to pay careful attention to the prompts and the structure and wording of Ridsdale’s performance. Not everything is as it seems on first appearance.
RICHARD CARLETON: Okay, Now, you called Bishop Pell out of the blue.
DAVID RIDSDALE: Yes.
RICHARD CARLTON: Tell me why, please.
DAVID RIDSDALE: I was getting so confused and so psychologically agitated and depressed and angry I had to deal with this issue. And I believed at the time that he was the best way for me to go – ‘Look, what help do you have?’ Actually, I think my terms were, ‘What internal processes do the Church have to help with situations like this because I’m beside myself and I’m terrified.’
RICHARD CARLETON: To the best of your memory, tell me what happened, please. You dialled up a number and then what?
DAVID RIDSDALE: I dialled a number, asked to speak to him. I said, ‘Hello, George’, because that’s what I called him. And he said, you know, ‘Hi, how are you?’ I said, ‘Look, this assault has happened to me. I’m really beside myself. I need some assistance, some help.’ His reaction was so totally unexpected. He didn’t respond to anything I said. He sort of cut me off and was using all sorts of language and quite confusing [sic].
RICHARD CARLETON: Now, did you tell him specifically…?
DAVID RIDSDALE: I told him specifically I had been assaulted by my uncle, Gerald Ridsdale, very specifically.
RICHARD CARLETON: Okay. What did he say?
DAVID RIDSDALE: He took control then of the conversation and I could sense anger. At that point, I can categorically say I don’t remember everything he said because it was overwhelming, it was very confusing and I started to get a sense he was insinuating things and I felt like I’d done something wrong.
RICHARD CARLETON: That you’d done something wrong?
DAVID RIDSDALE: Yes, that I was at fault and that I was causing him grief and then all of a sudden I just stopped and went, ‘George, I’m totally lost. Can you please tell me what you were trying to say here?’ And his response to that was, ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet.’
RICHARD CARLETON: Are there any doubts in your mind that those were the specific words that he used?
DAVID RIDSDALE: ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet’. None at all. Not those last two phrases, no, because it triggered…
RICHARD CARLETON: Ten years after the event, how can you be so sure?
DAVID RIDSDALE: Because of what it triggered in me. It changed everything — all of a sudden the priorities got into place. My fear of my grandma had to be put aside, despite the fact that to this day I still believe that by becoming open with it, it actually killed her. She became very ill not long after it came out and was soon bedridden and died.
RICHARD CARLETON: Do you realise the gravity of what you’re saying? I mean, 10 years after the event, you’re saying that the man that is now Archbishop of Sydney, effectively head of the Catholic Church in Australia, 10 years ago was offering to shut you up about child sexual abuse?
DAVID RIDSDALE: Yeah.
RICHARD CARLETON: You can’t make a much more grave charge that that, I’m afraid.
DAVID RIDSDALE: Well, you know, that is definitely what happened. You know, that was because… That one phone conversation is the reason that I went to the police and so on and everything that happened afterwards.
RICHARD CARLETON: Okay. Continue with the phone conversation. You then put the direct question, ‘What are you trying to say?’ words to that effect?
DAVID RIDSDALE: Yes.
RICHARD CARLETON: And what was the response?
DAVID RIDSDALE: It was very definite. ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet’.
RICHARD CARLETON: And you then said what?
DAVID RIDSDALE: You’ll probably have to beep it, but I said, ‘Fuck you and fuck everything you stand for,’ and I hung up. Any miniscule faith I might have had in the Church and its people was exploded...
RICHARD CARLETON: So why should we believe you?
DAVID RISDALE: George Pell knows the truth.
The evidence? This is it. There is none. It is all mere assertion and nothing else. One could just as easily say that David Ridsdale ‘knows the truth’. Ridsdale’s sisters, also filmed in salubrious surroundings, don’t provide any evidence. On Carleton’s prompts, they simply repeat what Ridsdale has said — words that amount to vilification without firm evidence. But if there is no evidence to justify Ridsdale’s charge, there is evidence on which to form other conclusions about the character of Ridsdale and the possible motives he has for his attack on the Archbishop. Let me start with Ridsdale’s last response first.
Questions about David Ridsdale’s credibility
Ninety-nine percent of Catholics who do their best to follow the path of their faith would never dream of abusing a bishop with the foul language that Ridsdale unashamedly repeats here. In that alone, a true Catholic would see great significance. One would wonder what adherence or sympathy Ridsdale ever had with the Catholic faith. But the more important point here, one that the anti-religious bigots of the media would completely miss, is that Ridsdale is directing his foul abusive mouth at the Church itself.
You see, the faithful Catholic automatically makes a distinction between the Church Christ established, the Mystical Body, and the human members who sometimes fail in their duties – some appallingly. This is a distinction that is incomprehensible to an atheist, a person whose metaphysical view of the world is materialist. Carleton doesn’t see it, Philip Adams wouldn’t see it, but Ridsdale gives himself away in his foul-mouth abuse of the Church. It is obvious that there is an anti-Church agenda behind Ridsdale’s sudden baring of all to the media after ten years of silence. Let me now connect this to other aspects of his performance with Carleton.
One of the first aspects to strike the viewer during Carleton’s ‘interview’ with Ridsdale is the firm, confident, articulate structure of his account, both of his experience with his uncle, and his thoughts and feelings before during and after he spoke with Archbishop Pell. His account is weighed and measured to fit the time available to him and to convey his message. His confident articulate performance provides a stark contrast with his claims that he was ‘psychologically agitated’, ‘depressed and angry’ and ‘terrified’ of the Church. He seems to have had no trouble in appearing on national television to attack ‘one of the most powerful men in Australia’ and the oppressive institution of the Catholic Church. His confident articulate performance also contrasts sharply with his claim that Archbishop Pell intimidated and confused him during the alleged telephone conversation. Finally, it also contrasts with his inability to recount even a few phrases from the Archbishop’s allegedly intimidating ‘control of the conversation’.
Thus, not only can Ridsdale not provide evidence for what he crucially claimed the Archbishop said to him, he cannot provide even a paraphrasing of other parts of the conversation. All this is while he can provide with stunning clarity just about everything else about his ‘relationship’ with ‘George’. Why the absolute clarity of ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet’ and an abject failure of memory on other parts of the conversation?
There is something else that is a giveaway for somebody who strove to give the impression of having an almost family relationship with ‘George’. For somebody who claims a close relationship between his family and the Archbishop, there is a striking lack of knowledge of the mode of speech, the manner and the character of Archbishop Pell. Simply put, those who have had anything to do with the active Archbishop would not recognise the real person in Ridsdale’s account. The idiom of the Archbishop’s speech is totally foreign to what Ridsdale claims he said. The phrasing of ‘I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet’ is not the phrasing of the man in question.
The phantom Archbishop and anti-Catholic rhetoric
Archbishop Pell, to the relief of true Catholics, is not afraid to stand up, be forthright and defend the Church, but his manner in doing so is patient, calm and tactful — as was evident in his press conferences. It is just not credible that he would be guilty of the hard, uncompromising, tactless phrasing of the sentence Ridsdale attributes to him.
Now if there is no correspondence between the idiom and phrasing of the real man and the phantom bishop in Ridsdale’s account, there certainly is between Ridsdale’s mode of speech and the rhetoric of a particular political movement. I was not the only one to notice this.
I have watched the ‘60 Minutes’ program five or six times but even on the first viewing I was struck by the campishness of Ridsdale’s speech and actions. It did not take me long to recognise the anti-catholic rhetoric of the homosexualist movement, particular of the Rainbow Sash Movement, an organization which pretends to be Catholic but is just one of the many embittered groups vainly trying to subvert the Church and its teaching.
One the most bitter and active members of the Rainbow Sash Movement is Michael Kelly who is stationed in Melbourne with the media at his beck and call. Michael Kelly has emphasised the need for homosexuals to promote their message through all media outlets. I invite readers to log on to the Rainbow Sash Movement’s website (www.rainbowsashmovement.org/) to acquaint themselves with their political agenda and test my claim that Ridsdale’s rhetoric corresponds nicely with that of this movement. One should especially compare the crucial parts of Ridsdale’s account with what can be read there. The following extract from their ‘mission statement’ demonstrates who they have particularly in their sights:
As part of our actions we have highlighted various issues in the church’s treatment of gay people:
* The damaging effects on young people of the church’s teaching and discrimination against gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender people…youth suicides, harassment, homophobic violence etc;
* The actions and strategies of ‘gay cure’ groups like Courage and the Exodus, now active in Australia, and welcomed by the local Archbishop;
* The Church’s ongoing demand that it receive exemption from all anti-discrimination legislation passed by Federal and State Parliament, and its refusal to hire openly Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender people.
The movement has also focused on alerting the gay community to the policies, power and influence of right-wing Catholic leaders, and also on encouraging gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender people to stand up with their churches, and claim the right to their own spiritual heritage.
I don’t have to point out that Archbishop Pell is precisely one of those ‘right-wing Catholic leaders’ the Rainbow Sash people have undertaken to combat without let-up. In addition to the obvious ongoing campaign in the media against Archbishop Pell, it has become clear to me from conversations with various pretend Catholics that the homosexualist movement hates him with a vengeance and that their efforts will be unrelenting until they can bring him down.
The one consolation is that that will never happen unless the out-and-out bigotry practised by many public figures against the Catholic Church becomes part of the state’s legislation and the Archbishop is forced out. I suppose that is not beyond the realm of possibility. It seems in practice that the provisions of the anti-vilification and equal opportunity legislation are exempted when one is talking against Catholics and the Catholic Church, but applied when Catholics and the Catholic Church attempt to defend themselves. There is no level of public vilification like that directed at Catholics and the Catholic Church. If you are a faithful Catholic you are well aware of the unabashed hypocrisy of the politically correct class.
The Rainbow Sash website is the undisguised site for the frenzied propaganda of a political movement that has the destruction of the Catholic Church as its paramount aim. One of their great weapons is the manipulation of state legislation to further their cause.
If there were any further doubt of the connection between David Ridsdale and the rhetoric and aims of the homosexualist movement, then let me refer the reader to a story that appeared in the Age (4 June) and was evidently meant to nail Archbishop Pell:
Archbishop George Pell was informed of serious accusations involving his role in an alleged sex abuse cover-up five years ago, it was claimed yesterday…Freelance journalist Clive Simmons said that he had presented Dr Pell with allegations from paedophile victim David Ridsdale that Dr Pell had tried to buy his silence in March 1997 [sic]. Simmons, writing for the now defunct gay publication OutRage, sought an interview with Dr Pell to respond to David Ridsdale's allegations in early 1997. He was investigating the cases of victims of Gerald Ridsdale, who by then was into the third year of his sentence…
‘Gay publication OutRage’? Leaving aside the truth of the allegation (again, it is mere assertion), is it just coincidence that this homosexualist publication was taking up David Ridsdale’s case on his behalf? Hardly.
There is a lot more that could be remarked upon with regard to Part One and David Ridsdale’s allegations in the ‘60 Minutes’ program. But at this point, one can only conclude that Ridsdale has little credibility. Far from the evidence supporting a case against the Archbishop, it actually supports the view that the performance was motivated by a recognisable political agenda against Catholics and the Catholic Church.
Richard Carleton’s credibility, if there still lingered a doubt in the most gullible of viewers, must be forever shattered. At no time, does he attempt to question David Ridsdale or even raise some obvious points to ward off the claim that he was biased. It is a measure of how confident he is of the natural bigotry of his fellow Australian. But he must be deluded in this. Not all Australians, by a long shot, will swallow such a travesty of investigative journalism. Richard Carleton should resign and take his corrupt inclinations out of public life. That would mean that one source of bigotry would be blocked off from befouling the impressionable minds in our society.
In a following comment, I will examine Part Two of the ‘60 Minutes’ attack on Archbishop Pell and the Catholic Church.
20 June 2002
  |