5 Oct 2012

Launceston Examiner Caught Lying About Greg L'Estrange

So why didn't the Examiner name this mill partner ?

Why did the Examiner publish a statement from John Gay insider trading witness Greg L'Estrange on October 4 saying "Gunns was two weeks away from securing a joint venture partner for the proposed Bell Bay pulp mill when the company went into administration last week"? Thats very different from what Greg L'Estrange told the pre-trial hearings in Launceston on the same day. "The only time we formed the view it (pulp mill) was unlikely to happen was at the June 2012 accounts."  From June to
The Examiner propaganda machine goes into reverse
September is NOT 2 WEEKS IT'S 3 MONTHS 
That's two different versions of the same event from the same person reported in the same newspaper on the same day. 

Same shit, different day at the Examiner. Friday the 5th and the Examiner rewords the story with a watered-down heading and yesterdays date. Obviously The Examiner is wallowing in unsubstantiated, revisionist voodoo journalism. Why did Greg L'Estrange appear to purjure himself (according to the Examiner) by telling the court Gunns knew in June the pulp mill would not go ahead?
Why is the Examiner also  running a dialogue with John Gay about matters directly impacting his current criminal court case? We think the Examiner prints blatant propaganda and has no right to call itself a newspaper. John Fairfax should either sack the incompetent editorial staff at the Examiner or pull the plug on it.

No comments: