Boycott the Telegraph (entry one in a series of thousands)

There is so much innuendo and outright rubbish published on a daily basis by Sydney’s shame, the Daily Telegraph, that it almost seems futile to single out individual examples. But what the hell, I’m a small man in a lot of ways so let’s subject some of the recent garbage vomited forth by this miserable excuse for a ‘news’ paper to a little scrutiny.

NB: I’m not linking to the original stories and will never link to Telegraph content.

The writer in this case is one Andrew “Pulitzer” Webster. His stock in trade, in common with many of his lazy colleagues at the Telegraph, is not breaking actual news stories (why bother when you can find all the forthcoming player movements on Twitter and fans’ forums – and never mind if they’re true or not) but regurgitating talk radio-level dribble with the dash of added pomposity needed to dress it up as a professional op-ed column.

In the past couple of weeks, Pulitzer has twice opined on Benji Marshall in the wake of his August court case. Long story short: the assault case against Marshall was thrown out without even making it to a jury. The overwhelming impression the conclusion of the case gives is that is that the whole ridiculous affair should never have got to court in the first place.

The natural response to this – at least on the part of anyone who actually likes rugby league – would be relief that the game isn’t going to be dragged through the mud again by player misbehaviour and the inevitable ensuing media circus. But not Pulitzer: he’s got a different angle. Apparently Marshall ought to bow and scrape more while being exonerated.

To be fair to Pulitzer, he’s got some skill. Not much, but a bit. When he sets about a character assassination of one of the NRL’s biggest stars – and arguably the biggest draw card in the game – he knows he’s not going to be able to outright accuse him of anything. After all, Marshall has a clean record and at the time of the article’s publication mere hours had passed since he had been described in glowing terms by character witness and all-round Australian sporting icon, Dawn Fraser, and had all charges against him thrown out of court.

So Pulitzer goes heavy on the innuendo. “Marshall is a cocky little character on the field…. Surprisingly, though, Marshall oozed the same self-assuredness when it came to his big day in court with his freedom – not the game – on the line.” Apparently giving confident testimony is somehow grounds for suspicion in Telegraph-world. I wonder what Pulitzer would have thought if Marshall had been inarticulate or monosyllabic in court?

Later on in the article things get frankly ridiculous. “When [Marshall’s barrister Geoff] Bellew asked him about being approached by ‘patrons’ out in public, [Marshall] almost sighed like it was all part of the job. ‘Absolutely yes,’ he said. ‘It happens every day.’” Oh my god, really? He “almost” sighed! How dare he have so much contempt for the general public – who, lest we forget, Pay His Wages – that he “almost” sighs when asked if he gets approached a lot?

You know what, Andrew Webster? it “almost” amazes me that anyone pays you to write this shit.

Later on in the same piece, Pulitzer does his damnedest to disprove potential allegations that all his material is unsubstantiated bullshit, lazily cobbled together out of his own prejudices and the venal desire to stir up controversy where none exists. Yes, that’s right – he quotes an actual source. And it’s pretty awesome material, too; step aside Wikileaks because Pulitzer may or may not have spoken to someone or other.

“The Daily Telegraph delivered the news of the not guilty verdict to a few leading players, and when advised of his remarks afterwards they knowingly laughed. ‘No surprise,’ said one. ‘Why would you not just say thank you and get out of there?’”

Incidentally, I delivered the news of Pulitzer’s pathetic column to a few leading players in my head, and when advised of the garbage contained in it they knowingly laughed. ‘No surprise,’ one of them could easily have said. ‘I’m a figment of your imagination and I’ll say whatever you want.’

So that was act one of Pulitzer’s little character assassination. Predictably, after a few days of negative comment about the content of the first effort he – like a neutered old dog that makes up for its lack of bollocks by incessantly licking its own arsehole – came back for a second dig. Word to the wise, Pulitzer: if you’re confident in your material you can rise above the critics. Responding just legitimises their complaints.

That goes double when the response is as feeble as: “Last week, this column was criticised in one section of the media for a story explaining how Marshall had come across as far too cocky while sitting in the witness box as he defended an assault charge that could’ve landed him in jail. For the record, the story was checked off with The Daily Telegraph's court reporter before it was filed.”

Yes, that’s right: Pulitzer’s defence of his material is ‘it wasn’t actually libellous’. This is effectively the same as a builder doing a shoddy job on your house extension, and when you call him up to complain saying ‘I drove past your house yesterday and it’s still standing – what’s your problem?’ Thank goodness Pulitzer didn’t become a doctor (some chance!) – I can see him now telling some tragic victim of surgical incompetence ‘well yer still alive aintcha?”

And don’t get me started on Rothfield.