Ron Tandberg, The Age cartoonist who ‘stood for the little man’, dead at 74

Posted January 08, 2018 18:56:30

Decorated Fairfax cartoonist Ron Tandberg has been remembered for his keen sense of justice after he died from cancer aged 74.

Tandberg won 11 Walkley awards for his illustrations, including two Gold Walkleys, and was known for his succinct style and cutting wit.

Friend and associate editor of The Age Tony Wright said Tandberg made a career out of drawing minimalist pocket cartoons which “cut through everything” and stood up to the big end of town.

“Just about every political figure that you could name of the last four decades has found themselves the brunt of that ‘simplistic little line’ as he used to call it, the abstract little line that he created,” he said.

“He was a fellow who stood for the little man, he considered himself that little man who often appeared in his cartoons.”

“He was actually a wonderful artist, very skilled at drawing and all the rest of it, but he decided that he would concentrate on just the tiniest, most minimalist cartoons possible with just a few lines that would say a great deal.

“And he did, he said a great deal, every single day.”

Tributes flow, cartoons shared

On Twitter, politicians, journalists and public figures and organisations shared their favourite works.

Editor of The Age Alex Lavelle paid tribute to Tandberg, describing him as a “great friend and inspiration” to countless members of staff, and a talent adored by readers.

“Not only was he a world-class cartoonist, he was a world-class human being,” he said.

“You couldn’t help but feel better about life after a conversation with Ron.

“Even during these impossibly hard few months while he was battling cancer, he maintained his extraordinary sense of humour and was still drawing a few days ago.”

Fellow Fairfax cartoonist Cathy Wilcox tweeted “if brevity is the soul of wit, then Ron Tandberg was its embodiment”.

Tandberg was inducted into the Melbourne Press Club’s Hall of Fame in 2014, which described his cartoons as a “unique combination of portraiture and graphic art to provide compelling insight and humour”.

The club paid tribute to his work illustrating a 1980s anti-AIDS campaign, saying it “underscored a remarkable capacity to impact public consciousness”.

In an interview with the National Portrait Gallery, Tandberg said inspiration for his daily cartoons did not always come easily.

“A cartoonist has more freedom because you can interpret the news and actually give it a slant, or interpretation,” he said.

“Sometimes the ideas come quickly and easily, other times, there’s a lot of torture and often how you present it is the difference between a good cartoon and a bad cartoon.

“I think my education was pretty ordinary and I think it helped because you didn’t have the structured way of looking at things, you actually had your own little way of looking [at] things.

“I think that’s what a cartoonist has to have, is a very individual view and individual experiences.”

Topics: community-and-society, print-media, contemporary-art, melbourne-3000, vic

’21 is young to become a bigot’: Lorde slammed in newspaper ad

Updated January 01, 2018 18:35:57

A pro-Israel organisation has used a full-page newspaper ad in the Washington Post to call singer-songwriter Lorde a “bigot” and accuse her home country New Zealand of “growing prejudice” against the Jewish people.

Key points:

  • Ad criticises Lorde for cancelling her Tel Aviv concert
  • New Zealand slammed for voting in favour of UN resolution
  • Ad published by US-based organisation that defends Israel in media

The ad in the December 31 edition, headlined “Lorde and New Zealand ignore Syria to attack Israel”, slams the Green Light singer for cancelling a scheduled performance in Tel Aviv.

It also criticises New Zealand for voting in favour of a United Nations (UN) resolution calling for the United States to drop its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“Tragically, New Zealand’s growing prejudice against the Jewish State seems to be trickling down to its youth,” it said.

“Let’s boycott the boycotters and tell Lorde and her fellow bigots that Jew-hatred has no place in the twenty-first century.”

The organisation behind the ad is the World Values Network, a US-based group that promotes Judaism and defends Israel in American media.

Last week, Lorde announced her plans to cancel an upcoming concert in Tel Aviv, Israel’s second-largest city, after appeals by pro-Palestinian activists.

The 21-year-old Grammy winner said she had been having “lots of discussions” on the matter and said cancelling the concert was the “right decision”.

The World Values Network started a GoFundMe page on December 26, a few days after Lorde’s announcement, and has raised more than US$26,000 since.

It was unclear whether this fundraiser funded the newspaper ad, although it features the same graphic that was used in the Washington Post.

Lorde’s decision to cancel her Tel Aviv concert has been met with support from pro-Palestinian activists, but criticism from Jewish organisations.

The World Values Network ad said by cancelling the concert the singer has joined a movement that “seeks the economic annihilation of the Jewish State”.

“While Lorde claims to be concerned with human rights, she hypocritically chose to proceed with her two concerts in Putin’s Russia, despite his support for Assad’s genocidal regime which has already claimed the lives of over 500,000 innocents,” the ad said.

New Zealand was one of more than 120 countries that voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution on Israel.

Topics: arts-and-entertainment, music, world-politics, unrest-conflict-and-war, print-media, israel, united-states

First posted January 01, 2018 18:26:01

Shades of Wag the Dog in fake news trick on Washington Post

By Micheline Maynard

Updated November 30, 2017 11:41:50

Twenty years ago, with a real sex scandal blazing in the White House, Hollywood came up with a dramatic solution to distract attention that seemed just a little far fetched at the time.

A fictional White House adviser and a fictional spin doctor concocted a plan to broadcast a fictional war. Patriotic fever sweeps America. The president’s problems are forgotten. And he wins re-election.

All because of what we would now call fake news.

That was the plot of the 1997 movie, Wag The Dog, starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman. It was wildly entertaining, and unsettling to think it might be possible.

But in those days before the web was widespread, and editing video was a cumbersome task, it was easy to ask, “Who would ever believe it?”

Fast-forward two decades and a similar scenario has just played out in Washington, amid the all too real sexual harassment scandals that are sweeping the United States.

Project Veritas, an organisation that targets the mainstream media and left-leaning groups, set up a clunky undercover effort to trick The Washington Post into reporting fake news.

In this case, the group allegedly hired a woman to claim that she had become pregnant as a teenager by Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Alabama who has been accused of sexual harassment.

During two weeks of interviews, the woman insisted to the Post that she had a sexual relationship with Moore that led to an abortion when she was 15.

As the Post recounted, she also tried to get the reporters investigating her story to share opinions about what might happen to Mr Moore’s candidacy if she went public with her story.

To the good fortune of its readers, the Post reporters paid attention to an old adage in American journalism: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

They shadowed the woman and spotted her walking into Project Veritas’ New York offices.

The Post then confronted James O’Keefe, founder of the project, who declined to answer questions about the alleged sting.

To quote another old saying in journalism, the whole situation simply didn’t pass the smell test.

But, the lengths to which Project Veritas went to try to trick The Washington Post show that there’s a war going on out there — not a fabricated one, as in Wag the Dog, but a real one to try to sully journalists’ reputations.

Media layoffs create opening for fake news

The timing actually couldn’t be worse. There have been vast job reductions and closings across the journalist landscape, with more layoffs announced just this week at sports network ESPN and The Detroit News, one of the city’s two papers.

That’s created an opening for groups like Project Veritas. As veteran journalists leave or are fired, some are being replaced by younger journalists trained in a completely different era than their elders, who wore scepticism the way previous generations donned fedoras.

Many of these digital natives are judged on output and speed, on being first to post something to the web, on the “buzziness” of their stories and how many readers share them on Facebook or tweet them to their followers.

While there are many talented newer reporters who are careful at their craft, some who are under the pressure to perform might conceivably had believed the woman from Project Veritas, and published or broadcast her account without digging deeper.

Across journalism, there was a tendency this week to congratulate the Post on its caution. But I am also petrified that many journalists are just sitting ducks, and that we are this close to a mishap.

Trump attacks NYT, uses Fox as propaganda arm

President Donald Trump is feeding into this with his constant accusations of “fake news”.

He has attacked numerous news organisations, from CNN to NBC and The New York Times, while praising Fox News, seemingly his propaganda arm.

His press secretaries have freely given false information at their regular news briefings, creating work for fact checkers and headaches for everyone else.

It’s exhausting, and it’s also the way that things simply are now. Journalists can’t just complain that someone like Project Veritas is out to trick us. We have to be extra vigilant about the way we do our jobs — and make sure that the public is on our side.

Wesley Lowry, a reporter at the Post, summed it up on Twitter, suggesting the problem partly lay with media professionals’ misguided assumptions about how audiences viewed them.

Reporters often think that readers and viewers know more than they do about us.

Journalists have been depicted on screen in a variety of ways, most recently in the Academy Award winning film Spotlight.

It painted a special reports team from The Boston Globe as dogged pursuers of justice, willing to spend months painstakingly interviewing victims of sexual assault in order to paint the bigger picture about the Catholic Church that their editor, Martin Baron, insisted they unearth.

When I saw that movie, I burst into tears recognising the many times I had followed leads that became dead ends, only to make one more call and do one more interview.

The real Baron, now the editor of the Post, smiled at me kindly when I babbled my admiration for the work his journalists had done.

But the next movie may not depict us in such a favourable light.

Project Veritas easily could learn from its mistakes with the Post this time, and attempt a more-sophisticated sting of someone else next time.

The sexual harassment scandals that we’ve been investigating could become our own scandals, if the public loses faith in us, and we fail to be as careful as the Post reporters and those at the Globe.

It means checking out every wisp of information, even if we think it seems believable.

Hopefully, our mothers will understand.

Micheline Maynard has worked as a journalist at The New York Times, NPR and Forbes, among other major American media outlets.

Topics: media, social-media, print-media, donald-trump, film-movies, united-states

First posted November 30, 2017 10:33:36

Is this the new normal? Trump threatens the press (again)

This week we saw Donald Trump return to his habitual tweet storming, this time threatening the news media. But does this mean we’re back to a version of American normal then, post the spate of natural disasters?

Rebel Wilson’s massive defamation win is an opportunity for publishers and readers

By Alana Schetzer

Posted September 14, 2017 16:52:54

Australia’s tabloid magazines received a massive blow when Rebel Wilson was awarded a whopping $4.5 million in damages over a series of articles in 2015 that were found to be defamatory.

But it’s also an opportunity for publishers and readers to say goodbye to an out-moded product.

The sheer size of the payout — which could be the subject of an appeal — sets a legal and social precedent in what magazines cannot get away with printing about people. In this case, a jury decided that Woman’s Day had damaged Wilson’s career with “a campaign designed to cast a slur on Ms Wilson, that would attract interest”.

The question now is how will magazines such as Woman’s Day, NW, New Idea and others respond to this? Will they keep exaggerating stories and using dodgy, anonymous sources or will they change tactics in order to avoid such stiff consequences again?

The holy trinity of gossip

Many gossip magazines are built on the premise of untruths and exaggerated tales, especially around the holy trinity of marriage, babies and divorce.

They buy photos from paparazzi photographers and build a narrative around that image.

Did a famous actor took grumpy while they’re eating at a cafe with their boyfriend? Must be relationship troubles!

Has a singer been snapped after eating a meal and looks a bit bloated? She must be eating for two!

Trust isn’t a factor

While many are predicting that the tabloid industry will now need to straighten up and stop printing falsehoods and stories built on flimsy premises and dodgy sources, that is not necessarily the case.

Trust has never been an ingredient needed for gossip magazine success; readers are often well aware that what they are reading is at the very least exaggerations and hyperbole, and Wilson’s win doesn’t change that.

Instead, readers will need to decide whether they want to continue to support an industry that profits off harming people’s reputations, career opportunities and relationship stability.

As long as people keep buying these magazines, it will be considered an endorsement of their actions. After all, aren’t they just supplying what their audience demands?

Money talks for cash-strapped companies

What could change the industry is money. Wilson’s payout is the biggest in Australian legal history; it is an eye-watering sum for the Australian magazine industry.

Wilson v Bauer

Such a hefty payout could have been absorbed by a magazine company’s equally hefty wallets a few years ago, but magazines are now struggling. A flux of title closures, staff redundancies and other cost cuts has removed the financial cushion needed to soften the blow of some of their more reckless actions.

Bauer Media, the German owner of Woman’s Day, has already had to drastically cut staff and use more content from its overseas publications following a drop in sales across most of its titles. It can ill-afford to have further defamation cases brought against it.

If it doesn’t make financial sense for a magazine to print nonsense, this could bring about a significant change in editorial approach.

Take Who for example, a tabloid magazine published by Pacific Magazines, but which has a editorial policy of not publishing known falsehoods or sleazy photographs. A recent Roy Morgan survey of magazine sales reveal that Who is performing better than Woman’s Day in terms of readership loss, but only by a tiny margin.

Struggling to keep up with online

Many former tabloid magazine readers have ditched print in favour for online gossip in recent years. Online, stories are instant and by the time a magazine is printed days later they are likely to be woefully out-out-date.

The need for fresh stories and angles in this hyper-competitive market could be a significant driving force for the creative licence used by these magazines.

Wilson is far from the first celebrity or high-profile person who’s been targeted by a tabloid magazine, having lies printed about their private lives.

TV presenter Fifi Box and actress Bec Hewitt are regular targets on the front pages of these magazines, an appearance they neither seek nor are happy with. On numerous occasions, these women have publicly called out the fake stories that are printed about them. But this didn’t stop readers from buying these magazines or reading other gossip online.

And if Wilson’s resounding win and record payout isn’t incentive enough for the tabloids to change their ways, what will it take?

Alana Schetzer is a freelance writer.

Topics: courts-and-trials, law-crime-and-justice, print-media, information-and-communication, arts-and-entertainment, melbourne-3000, australia

Political cartoons in the internet age — is it the end of an era?

Posted August 11, 2017 16:23:11

We started collecting cartoons in the last days of the Keating supremacy.

We used them to chronicle how the wheels fell off during the 1996 election campaign and that serial failure John Howard (once written off in a Bulletin headline as “Mr Eighteen Percent. Why does this man bother?”) won in a landslide.

Howard found that the times did indeed now suit him, and he swept aside Keating’s “Big Picture” as Peter Nicholson so poignantly captured while asking what might be its replacement.

After a slow start, PM Howard captured the nation’s mood for a decade, and the cartoonists chronicled it all with their customary wit and insight.

His demise was multifaceted but Herald Sun cartoonist Mark Knight’s memorable cartoon reminds us of Melbourne Cup day early on in campaign 2007, when he depicted the once invincible PM reduced to a poo sweeper, courtesy of the Reserve Bank’s decision to raise interest rates.

Back in the 1990s, writing about cartoons involved a budget for buying newspapers, scissors, and a good spatial memory.

It also involved proud and liberal use of the phrase “our great black-and-white art tradition”. Metropolitan and national newspapers were big, prosperous things, only just beginning to come to terms with colour.

The house cartoonists (there were often several) were central to their paper’s ethos, often “the most read thing in the paper”.

We never had any real empirical evidence for “the most read” assertion, but we made it often and no one ever demurred. Political cartoons were at the centre of a clearly defined media landscape.

When Howard defeated Keating, television set the daily political agenda, but the longer threads of debate were dominated by newspapers, especially the opinion-rich broadsheets.

One of Howard’s most effective innovations was to use talkback radio to avoid the filter of “elite” hostility he perceived as dominating newspapers and the ABC, but the internet was a fringe space, not yet more significant than community radio.

The opinion pages of newspapers were the dominant forum for serious political discussion, and at their heart was the visual terrorism of cartoons and illustrations — attracting eyes, conflating issues, and distilling images of politicians and their policies.

Every day they provided comic commentary on the politicians we elect to rule us, and often they managed darker and more serious satire.

The engagement was robust and sustained — for example, Bill Leak’s response to the GST policy that Howard took to the 1998 election was to draw him with 10 per cent more lip, and that is largely how many remember him.

Great comic artists spoke in sometimes savage shorthand to the major issues of the day, in the major crucible where those issues were thrashed out. They were uniformly powerful and humane in their response to the Howard government’s asylum seeker policies, for example.

The cartoonists doing the distilling were Tandberg, Leunig, Mitchell, Coopes, Alston, Leak, Petty, Cooke, Spooner, Brown, Nicholson, Wilcox, Rowe, Knight, Tanner, Pryor, Moir, Leahy, Atchison.

It was a stable list then, and changed only incrementally until just recently.

The last hurrah

For the 2016 campaign, painful in so many ways, was also the last hurrah for four great cartoonists of our era. Bruce Petty, John Spooner and Peter Nicholson retired from regular cartooning and earlier this year, Leak died suddenly.

We write, therefore, in long-term appreciation of the wit they have brought to our public life. We also must comment on how radically the media landscape has changed around them.

Retirements and even death are in the natural order of things, and all these men leave substantial bodies of work. What makes their departures epochal is the fact that none has been fully replaced at their newspapers.

They certainly haven’t been replaced by the group of female cartoonists whose eventual appearance we used to predict when asked “what about the women?”

It’s a good question but we, like cartoonist Fiona Katauskas, have no clear answer except to say, it’s a blokey world on the editorial floor.

Katauskas puzzles over the matter in her New Matilda article A woman walks into a bar and in recent correspondence observed:

“Another theory I have is that it’s the comedy thing. It’s not the politics thing — women are very well represented in political journalism.

“Comedy of all kinds — whether it be writing, performing or stand-up — is a different matter.

“These professions are also largely male-dominated and the myth that women aren’t funny helps to exclude them or discourage them from trying to break in.”

The last cartoons of the four greats at their long-term papers are a varied bunch. The two Age cartoonists left with reflective works during the phoney electoral war that marked the early months of 2016.

Petty shuffles off to the old cartoonists’ home with an evocation of the prime ministers back to Menzies that he had drawn, and a celebration of that scarcely balanced spaceship, democracy. Or is it, instead, a money-dominated plutocracy with the politicians owned by cigar-chomping money-men?

With Petty things are always more complicated, never resolved. Since he first drew for Murdoch’s Daily Mirror in 1962, Petty has sustained a powerful and precise critical eye on our travails as a nation, ever sharp and avuncular.

Spooner is, by contrast, blunter. He strands a menagerie of his bêtes noires — Turnbull, Shorten, Trump, trickle-down economics, climate alarmism, etc — on the island. He draws himself walking way in disgust, immodestly on top of the water. And the words remind us that cartoons tell truth to power in ways power would rather not hear.

The two cartoonists at The Australian left in full flight. Peter Nicholson really has been the pre-eminent cartoon commentator on current events, perhaps with Geoff Pryor of the Canberra Times and now the Saturday Paper.

He bowed out unobtrusively with this pre-publicity for a black-tie boxing night at Melbourne’s exclusive Australian Club. However, if you read his cartoons over time, you are wittily apprised of what has been going on, and get a brilliant first draft of history. It’s easy to do at Nicholson’s immaculate archive of his work.

Bill Leak was always much more the wild man than Nicholson, and his last cartoon would have caused a controversy had he lived long enough for the predictable outrage to build.

He was always after the harsh, prophetic laughter of satire, that moment of shock when you are made to see something you’d rather ignore.

Here he presents the NSW Education Minister as cheerfully beheaded in a controversy over Islamist radicalism at a Sydney High School. It is elegantly drawn and ruthless.

Much banality and pompous self-congratulation has been written about the “larrikin tradition” in Australia. Leak was the real thing, however, a much tougher thing than Paul Hogan throwing another shrimp on the barbie.

David Rowe’s contributions for the Australian Financial Review’s readership often enough reflect the cut through nature of the cartoon when set alongside the verbiage of so much political commentary.

Here we find a wonderful evocation of Edvard Munch’s 1893 painting The Scream as a parody on our experience as citizen voters confronting the long campaign Prime Minister Turnbull figured would be good for him, and good for us.

A loss of centrality

The more recent arrivals — David Pope, Jon Kudelka, Matt Golding, First Dog on the Moon and the like — are all fine and deserving artists in their own rights, but professional political cartooning is as blokey an activity as it ever was.

The younger men are entering a tougher world. Cartoons are still being published, but there is more syndication and (we hear) piecework, so the number of artists with regular jobs is shrinking.

It is a clear index of the fact that Australian newspapers are not what they were at the turn of the century, let alone what they were when the departed cartoonists joined them in the 1960s and 70s.

The Fairfax newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, are no longer the essential forums for debate and investigative journalism.

For the editorial cartoon in Australia and beyond, this is a problem. As a mode of critical and satirical art, it is particularly well-acclimatised to the printed newspaper, in a way that has not translated well online.

The cartoonists that held sway on newsprint opinion pages lack power and impact several clicks behind the first screen in the increasingly dominant web editions.

They lack power because they lack the simultaneous visual context a reader gets in scanning a printed newspaper.

While it would be ridiculous to assert that visual satire is disappearing in the digital age, one of the great satirical achievements of the mass media era especially in Australia, the editorial cartoon, is losing its centrality.

This is not a consequence of any waning of satirical power in the cartoons themselves. We are confident that we have demonstrated this strength again in the cartoon chronicle we’ve authored looking at the 2016 campaign.

But it is a significant consequence of changing formal and economic models in media, changes that scarcely existed in embryo when we started looking at cartoons.

Two decades ago, we could validly treat the cartoons as an index of comic and satirical commentary on the campaign.

Television and radio satire existed in some places, but were hard to capture and impossible to reproduce in our academic work; the cartoons told quite enough of the story and were seen by close enough to “everyone” to be representative of a dissenting view of the carnival of hypocrisy that parades during election campaigns.

Cartoons in the internet age

The cartoons tell just as good and memorable a story now, but have become a niche in a multi-faceted media landscape rather than the public thing (res publica) they once were.

Internet memes, Twitter, mash-ups, Facebook feeds, and a range of other social media make it impossible for students of political satire and comedy to consolidate a corpus for analysis. As a consequence, newspaper cartoons are no longer major components of the central forum that they were in the era of mass media.

As cartoon scholars, we experience this change as loss, though the spirit of caricature and satirical commentary is clearly healthy elsewhere in the media and finding modes of expression for the future.

One major trend is the move to longer form caricature, either through animations and collages, or through strip cartooning like that of First Dog on the Moon in the Guardian. The regular gigs still tend to focus on stationary images, however.

Animations as political satire are proving a hard model to crack, as no-one seems willing to foot the bill to sustain high-quality, animated daily satire. Meanwhile, editorial cartoons inhabit an increasingly marginal place in an increasingly fragmented and fractious media landscape.

But their capacity to tell truth to power, demonstrate that the kings and queens of political life have no clothes, and to entertain the public remains undiminished.

While this particular mode of satirical representation may be in retreat before the forces of digital media, graphic satire is not going to die while it has such fit meat to feed on.

Robert Phiddian is Deputy Dean at Flinders University’s School of Humanities.

Haydon Manning is Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, at Flinders University.

Originally published in The Conversation

Topics: print-media, internet-culture, arts-and-entertainment, government-and-politics, australia

Rebel with a cause: Wilson promises to donate defamation payout

Posted June 22, 2017 08:12:26

Australian actress Rebel Wilson, who is seeking $7 million from a magazine publisher after successfully suing for defamation, has promised to donate any money she receives to charity, scholarships or the local film industry.

Earlier this month, Wilson won her case against Bauer Media over a series of articles she said portrayed her as a serial liar as part of a “malicious, deliberate take-down”.

Wilson’s lawyer, Matthew Collins QC, yesterday told the Victorian Supreme Court that Wilson could have made up to $18 million from a number of film roles if the articles had not damaged her career.

Wilson is seeking $5.89 million in special damages and $1.2 million in general damages.

But she used Twitter to promise to give any money she gets to charities or local causes.

“Re my defamation case win, any dollars I receive will go to charity, scholarships or invested into the Aussie film industry to provide jobs,” Wilson tweeted.

“I take being a role model very seriously.”

The matter is continuing in the Victorian Supreme Court, which has been hearing evidence about how much Wilson should receive in damages.

Damages for non-economic losses in Victorian defamation cases, such as emotional suffering, are capped at $389,500.

But special damages, including loss of earnings, are uncapped.

Hollywood agent and producer Peter Principato yesterday told the court Wilson should have received a minimum of two movie offers after her success in the film Pitch Perfect 2, and would have commanded about $6 million for each film.

“Wilson was one of those actresses where every studio was talking about and trying to find projects for [her],” Mr Principato told the court via video link.

Dr Collins said there was a degree of guesswork in finding the right figure for the damages payout.

Wilson has been active on social media throughout the weeks-long trial, using Instagram and Twitter to document her time with family in Melbourne, and to praise her legal team after her win.

She has also received support from a number of Australian celebrities on Twitter, including singer Delta Goodrem, who tweeted after the verdict: “ENOUGH is enough of media lies.”

Former Australian cricketer Shane Warne congratulated Wilson and tweeted that Woman’s Day, one of the magazines that published the articles, has been “a disgraceful magazine for a long time”.

“Hopefully this makes them report facts & stops the rubbish,” Warne wrote.

Former tennis player Lleyton Hewitt tweeted: “They have to be held accountable. Justice is done!”

Topics: law-crime-and-justice, courts-and-trials, film-movies, arts-and-entertainment, charities, community-and-society, comedy-humour, print-media, information-and-communication, melbourne-3000, vic