From: Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012 10:00 AM To: Jonathan Holmes

Jonathan, I'm sorry I haven't got back to you before now. I've been busy.

Frankly, it has taken me a couple of days to get over my astonishment that I would be asked, by Media Watch of all people, to reveal my off the record conversations with anybody.

Further, your questions are such a jumble of what I believe to be a completely wrong set of premises about events in and questions that are answerable and unanswerable, that I have found it hard to work out how exactly I can try to shed some light on these issues.

I'm doing so lest my silence be regarded as somehow confirming the dark conspiracy you suggest.

I will not even go to the imputation in question about 'truthful' answers.

What can I tell you?

I can tell you that neither nor his supporters have briefed me in the last six months that he intended to mount a challenge for the leadership.

I can tell you that in the last month, possibly earlier, I can't remember, the idea of a two stage challenge has been wargamed amongst politicians of all persuasions, all parties, all factions. Not even necessarily about Rudd. Just because once something happens in politics, people tend to go back and look for repeats.

Are politicians rude about each other? Of course they are. Do I report it when it is important for my readers to know about it? Yes. I point you to pieces I write in 2009 and 2010 which reported the internal problems in the and similar ones I've written about the .

However, as I said earlier, I believe the whole premise of your questions is wrong.

That's because the only way Rudd was ever going to get back into the leadership was if Labor became so desperate it drafted him. This would have required the 'faceless men' to have to admit they were wrong, which was always a big stumbling block.

Rudd was always being told to sit back and shut up if he wanted to come back and, in general, he did.

Whatever happened in the 2010 election campaign, I find it hard to think of any example of a bad turn of events for the government since the campaign that can be sheeted home to Rudd. That is, unless you count the fact that he lived and breathed and was therefore a reminder of the fact Labor had a choice.

What has happened in the past couple of months has been a result of 's missteps - which caused some of her supporters to peel off but not necessarily move to the Rudd camp - and then the Gillard supporters doing whatever they could to provoke Rudd into acting in a way which would allow the prime minister to either sack him or otherwise bring this issue to a head earlier rather than later.

Don't get me wrong. Kevin Rudd is not angelic or without flaw or fault. But the idea that he has had a secret strategy that he was waiting to implement, akin to a raid on the armoury, overlooks the basic fact that he has not had the numbers to do over Gillard in a leadership contest.

Should journalists 'out' people who have spoken to them on the presumption that journalists actually adhere to their code of ethics? Of course not.

Having said that, our first obligation is to our readers. The balancing act of political journalism in particular is telling people things they need to know without revealing our sources. This is the very reason we spend so much of our lives under attack from people who think we make it up. This only increases the responsibility on journalists - particularly in these days of a crazy news cycle - to be responsible in reporting things like media speculation.

The fact that some people in the gallery have made an imminent leadership challenge an almost weekly event has brought criticism and ridicule on our heads.

Laura Tingle

From: Jonathan Holmes Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 4:10 PM To: Laura Tingle Subject: Media Watch questions

Hi Laura I know it’s a busy time, but we’d really appreciate it if you could find time to answer the following questions. Most require only one word answers. Media Watch is exploring some of the issues arising out of the current ALP leadership ballot and events preceding it. We are sending this email to several senior political reporters and commentators. Any answers you may send will be treated as on the record and may be posted on our website or used in the program. At his press conference in Washington this morning Australian time Kevin Rudd said: “Ours is a democracy, in the open spaces, not behind closed doors, not governed by faceless men.” At his resignation speech a few hours earlier, he said: “The truth is that people regard this whole affair as little better than a soap opera, and they are right. And under current circumstances, I won't be part of it. It is also, I believe, a distraction from the real business of government…” And later: “But I can promise you this, there is no way - no way - that I will ever be party to a stealth attack on a sitting prime minister elected by the people.” We have the following questions:

1. Have you at any time in the past 6 months been personally briefed on an off-the-record or background basis by Kevin Rudd, or by MPs claiming to represent Mr Rudd’s interest, about his intention to challenge Julia Gillard for the leadership of the Parliamentary Labor party, and the tactics he intends to employ? Have Mr Rudd or his supporters disparaged Ms Gillard’s performance as PM to you? 2. If the truthful answer to question 1 were “yes”, do you agree that in normal circumstances you would be obliged either not to answer it or to answer “no”? 3. If the truthful answer to question 1 were “yes”, hypothetically, would Mr Rudd’s explicit declaration that he has not been a part of “this whole affair” absolve you of the obligation to honour whatever agreement you came to about the confidentiality of those briefings? 4. In 2007, the ABC’s Michael Brissenden, and others, “outed” Peter Costello and revealed details of an off the record conversation they had had with him years earlier, because he had specifically and publicly denied the content of that conversation. Would you in similar circumstances have taken that course of action? 5. How do you respond to Michael Gawenda when he says in his piece on the ABC’s Drum website today http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3847892.html that “On the evidence so far, there are reporters and commentators - as well as editors and broadcasting bigwigs - who have allowed things to be said and reported that they know not to be true”? 6. In her press conference this morning the Prime Minister absolved reporters of any obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any conversation in which she disparaged Kevin Rudd while he was Prime Minister. Hypothetically, if you had been a party to such a background conversation, would you now feel free to report it?

7. Do you think that political reporting in – and especially in Canberra – is over- reliant on unattributable sources and off-the-record briefings? If so, is that over-reliance avoidable? In present circumstances, do you believe it has been possible for you to report what is really going on to your readers/listeners/viewers?

Because of our production deadlines we would very much appreciate responses before 5pm on Friday. If you do not intend to respond to any of the questions we’d appreciate a quick email to that effect.

Regards