WHY ARE FAIRFAX T RYING TO DES TROY S CHAPELLE?

About that initiative, Mr Allard. You know the one? The one in which Fairfax
manufactured a p oll and then sou ght to use it to undermine Schap elle Corby’s chances of
coming home to hosp ital and surviving.

Shall we have a look at it? And p erhaps take a p eek at y our track record and consider
some underly ing qu estions?

THE OLD POLL T RICK

Why did Fairfax create such a p oll, at a key point in Schap elle Corby’s clemen cy app eal,
with humanitarians desp erate for radio silence to giv e her the best chance? Why would
they manufacture that, Mr Allard?

More to the p oint, why would they run a story, through y our p en, which seeks to suggest
that the supp ort for her in Australia is not overwhelmin g? Why rep resent that, instead of
the true p icture, of, for examp le, the Women For Schapelle group being ov erwhelmin gly
applauded as they campaign throughout the country with they banners and leaflets?
Wouldn’t that have been a p leasant p ositive story on Schap elle, of rap idly increasing
concern and expanding sup p ort?

Was that not the signal y ou wanted to send, Mr Allard? Why not? Why would Fairfax
construct a hostile story, rather than p ick up a colourful and help ful news story that was
actually unfoldin g in the real world?

You see, M r Allard, the reality is that most Australians are sickened by what is happening
to Schapelle. They want her home and in hospital immediately . Outside Australia, outside
the scope of the toxic influ ence of Fairfax and the Australian media, no-on e at all wants
anything other than immediate freedom for Schap elle.

Just a coup le of other things on y our story, Mr Allard.

OPINION MANAGEMENT
That term, “convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby”, which y et again, y ou use in y our
story. Why is that M r Allard? Of all the p ossible terms y ou could use, why is that
ALWAYS used? Is it because of its dark connotations regardin g Schap elle, and that it
promotes the credibility of what was a show trial? That it makes her sound guilty ?

How about one of these: “Imprisoned Australian, Schapelle Corby”? Or “mentally ill,
Schapelle Corby”. Or what about exp andin g on the truth M r Allard, with “Innocent,
Schapelle Corby” or “human rights abuse victim, Schapelle Corby”?

Why, Mr Allard do we never see any thing remotely like these in Fairfax p ublications?
Why is it always the term with negative influen ce on p ublic percep tion, “convicted drug
smuggler Schapelle Corby”?

THAT LITT LE FABRICATION

And what about that little fabrication you threw in? You know, “high grade marijuana”.
High grad e? Really ? How could y ou possibly know that M r Allard, when the court
REFUSED to test it for quality or origin, despite Schap elle beggin g them to? Had this
slipped y our mind somehow?

Or is the truth that having called h er “convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby” you
wanted to embellish the bag of weed a little further to make it sound like a more heinous
crime? A little more twist to the influence y our article might have on the p ublic, or more
frightenin gly , on the Indonesians.

A HUMAN BEING
You see, we are back there, Mr Allard. Sch apelle Corby is a human bein g. Not just that,
but a psychotic mentally ill human b ein g, who is not in a hosp ital being treated, but in an
overbearin g ov ercrowded p rison cell in squalid h arsh conditions. Schap elle Corby is
suffering grotesquely , not only from the conditions, but in her child-like state bein g
unable to defend herself, from bully ing and worse.
She is goin g to stay there and almost certainly die M r Allard, unless her clemency app eal
is successful.

So why did y ou p roduce an article which might undermine her chan ces? Why didn’t y ou
produce one that might help her?

Can y ou not understand why the thriving Women For Schapelle group have a p roblem
with you?

A REPEAT OFFENDER
I also understand that you are a serial offend er M r Allard. For y our emp loyers, Fairfax,
over the y ears you have p roduced a number of stories damagin g to Sch ap elle Corby ,
haven’t y ou? Have y ou seen the following JournOz entry from January ?

TOM ALLARD EXT RACT FROM JOURNOZ

During the last coup le of weeks, two 'news stories' have been p ublished in the Australian
media which many ethical journalists quite rightly consider to be extremely damagin g to
the p rofession of journalism. Many would go further, and call them a reck less or
deliberate disregard for the consequences of the constituent words on the p rosp ects of a
citizen's survival - sp ecifically, that they app arently undermine the efforts to save a
mentally ill woman fro m further torment, which in itself will p robably lead to death in the
short term.

Bear in mind here that the journalists and editorial staff involv ed must have been well
aware of the p erilous state of the subject, Schap elle Corby . Her diagnosis by an eminent
psychiatrist, in fact no less than the former President of the Roy al Australian and New
Zealand College of Psychiatrists, could hardly be more widely known, and has been
referenced by both media organs many times.

Schap elle Corby is not just mentally ill, but in grav e trouble. Dr Phillip s was exp licit
when he revealed her condition:
"She is now helpless, hopeless, feels useless, she feels alienated, she feels removed from
the rest of humanity"
"She is in a situation where she cou ld easily move forward to kill herself."
"Schapelle has now cut herself quite severely and many times over on two occasions."
"She is hanging on by a thread"
Left in her Indonesian prison call, she has continued to deteriorate since she was
assessed. Her life han gs in the balance, with her family ever more desp erate.

So in the light this hugely disturbing real life situation, let's examine the two
contributions, which were p resented as news:
TOM ALLARD, S YDNEY MORNING HERALD (January 24, 2010)

This was a ridiculous story , constructed entirely on the p remise that an imprisoned
Australian was looking out for a mentally -ill prisoner. Yes, ind eed, THAT is app arently
the story.

Thus, as there basically was no story , the real p urp ose of the article must surely have
been to deliver something other than actual n ews.

But what? Why create a story , including y et more p ublic curiosity photograp hs of a
seriously p sy chotic Schap elle Corby , on the basis of pretty much nothing? What was the
journalist try ing to achieve?

Shall we take a look at his masterp iece, and consider the extracts which p ertain to
Schap elle Corby?

Let’s forget the innuendo of link in g Schap elle Corby to "lies" for now, and focus instead
on the book in question. Kathry n Bonella is a highly resp ected author who sp ent two
years intensively researching for the recently published ’Hotel Kerobokan’. This is a
compellin g expose: one which h as resulted in p redictable defensive p rop aganda from the
prison governor. One part of this op eration has been to allow carefu lly controlled and
managed p rison access to certain sections of the Australian media, who have rep orted
dutifully on the highly selective scenarios they have been exposed to.

This issue, of the Australian media d isseminatin g the p rop aganda of a foreign p rison as
news, has been discussed by ethical journalists elsewhere, but the moot p oint with resp ect
to the JournOz investigations is that associating Sch ap elle Corby with that particular
book may increase the risk to Schap elle Corby herself, who of course is totally helpless in
her current state of health, and at the mercy of every one within that p rison.

Surely it must have occurred to M r Allard, that having been fed the prop aganda, his
output might just be read in Indonesia. Did this scenario not even cross his mind?
A PTA is about as much use to Schapelle Corby as a back p ocket in a vest. Both himself,
and Kevin Rudd, must surely realize that Schap elle Corby is unlikely to survive anything
like long enou gh to benefit from it. Perhap s he should refer to the stories p ublished
previously in his own organ p ertaining to the Dr Phillip s report. There are other routes
available to Kevin Rudd, such as direct dip lomacy and negotiation: why didn’t his
mention those? Why didn’t he rep ort the real situation?

Shall we translate this to: "Don’t bother to be concerned or even protest for this woman.
She is going to stay there anywa y, so there is noth ing you can do" ? What a heroic
message regardin g someone who is not likely to survive much longer, and whose mental
state deteriorates almost by the day .

SCRATCHING THE SURFACE

Shall we also hav e a quick check on Tom Allard's p rofessional history ? Shall we have a
quick look to see if there are any interesting links? Say ... with the Schap elle Corby case
or key play ers within it?

Should we really be that surp rised? Straight off the bat Google shows us a nice set of
previous rep orts, p ertaining to one M r M ichael Keelty, Head of the AFP when Schap elle
Corby was incarcerated. And let's not beat about the bush: the same M r Keelty who is
held in contempt by many Schap elle Corby and human rights advocates.
You see, M r Keelty was involved in a numb er of events which are wid ely considered to
have contributed to Schap elle Corby ’s p redicament, not least a statement in M ay 2005 in
which slighted her defen ce p rior to the verdict, and which has since been shown to be….
rather operationally lackin g. That was an ultra-dip lomatic turn of p hrase I used there by
the way.

It app ears that Mr Allard has not only written about Mr Keelty whilst rep orting general
news, but has produced a bio piece which many would say is rather flattering, even
glowing. The p iece I am look ing at now even delivers another of Commissioner Keelty 's
hostile comments regardin g the case, though the p en of Tom Allard.

Would you care to comment on this strange coin cidence, M r Allard?

Of course, we know that y our... err, position... with resp ect to M r Keelty wouldn't have
influenced y our story on Schapelle Corby at all. But I am sure y ou can p rovide us with a
good explanation to counter all those wicked peop le out here who might think unp ure
thoughts.

GROSS ABUSE
And whilst discussing this less than help ful story, it would be remiss not to mention the
gross abuse of Schap elle Corby's p rivacy . Already p aranoid to the degree that she
removed the eyes from her soft toy s because she thought they might be cameras, she was
confronted again by gleeful p ress hounds exploiting her in the worst imaginable
paparazzi tradition. Is there no end to the depth of this gutter?

This is morally and ethically rep ugnant, of course, but let's examine some of the
international frameworks which exist to restrain rogue nations, as well as p redators like
Fairfax:

In a formal War Scen ario, the Geneva Conv ention is clear: "Article 27 says tha t people
protected b y the Fourth Convention ‘are en titled, in all circumstances, to respect for their
persons" and be protected from violence, threats, insults and public curiosity. A similar
provision under the Third Convention protects prisoners of war against "insults and
public curiosity’.". And "Art. 27. Protected p ersons are entitled, in all circumstances, to
respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and
practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated,
and shall be protected especially against a ll acts of violence or threats thereo f and
against insults and public curiosity.". For normal conditions, the United Nations also
publish some p rovisions in this area, and with resp ect to the rights of mentally ill
prisoners.

Of course, Fairfax are not alone in abusin g Sch ap elle Corby , Channel Nine and others
also have an app alling track record for it. But tormenting a mentally ill woman makes a
truly grotesque sp ectacle to anyone who resp ects human rights.
Finally , it would app ear, Tom Allard, that y ou are following in the footstep s of y our
predecessor at SMH, Eamonn Duff. However, just out of curiosity , are y ou p roud of y our
conduct with this case? Is this what y ou envisaged journ alism as being when y ou entered
the p rofession all those y ears ago?

I don’t mean to p robe, but it really is hard not wonder about these sorts of asp ects when I
read disturbing material lik e y ours.

WHY?
So, why are all y our articles on Schapelle Corby alway s hostile to her, M r Allard? Why
do Fairfax never p ublish supp ortive material?

I already know the answers Mr Allard, but I would like to hear them from you. You have
my email address.