From: Peter Fray

Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 4:12 PM

To: Jonathan Holmes
Subject: RE: wikileaks cables

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your email. To respond:

1. No one is doubting the veracity of the cables published in The SMH and The Age.

2. We agree that it would be preferable to put the cables online -- and we have been working towards
that end.

3. I would not describe this as a ''deficiency''.

4. I can't speak for the other newspapers, but the volume of material in the Australian referenced
cables means we are still mining the source documents. There are, for instance, several potential
stories in each cable; to put the material online would be to give access to our competitors in the local
market.

5. The process of putting material online is labour intensive and the key reporter, Philip Dorling, has
been concentrating on putting articles together.

6. There is no financial arrangement between the Herald and WikiLeaks. Mr Dorling is a Fairfax
employee.

Regards,

Peter Fray

From: Jonathan Holmes

Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:01 PM
To: Peter Fray
Subject: wikileaks cables

Hi Peter

As you know Media Watch is not on air at present but I am still writing a weekly column for The Drum.

I’m wondering if you could answer a few questions, on the record. Or if you prefer call me on the mobile
number below (not the office number)

1. In his op-ed for The Australian, Julian Assange claimed that “We (Wikileaks) work with other media
outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a
news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge
for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?” Can you explain why the
arrangement between Wikileaks and the Fairfax papers does not accord with this claim? Why, unlike
The Guardian, Le Monde, the New York Times etc are the stories by Philip Dorling, based on cables
leaked to Wikileaks, that have been published in the SMH not accompanied by the documentary
evidence. Why can’t readers access the actual cables on line?
2. Why has no explanation been given by Fairfax Media for this obvious deficiency in its Wikileaks
coverage?
3. Philip Dorling’s article in Saturday’s SMH about how he visited Wikileaks headquarters in England
gave absolutely no details of the agreement he came to with Wikileaks and/or Julian Assange about
 access to the cables, whether there was any financial transaction involved, whether Dorling was
allowed to copy the cables and where those copies now are, or anything else about the arrangement.
Why not?
4. If this secrecy has been enforced on the SMH by Wikileaks, how does it accord with that
organisation’s dislike of official secrecy in others? If by the SMH, what is the reason for it?

Best regards

Jonathan Holmes
Presenter, Media Watch
ABC TV, Sydney