The Chronicle dedicated its entire front page, pages 4 and 5, the editorial and the editor's Inside Story column to the demonisation of Strewth, those who published it and those who provided contributions. What amounted to three and a half good news pages were wasted on nothing more than a defunct blog site.
This kind of coverage certainly piqued my curiosity but like most members of the public I was not aware Strewth existed before it closed down. Of course it is a fact that mainstream media organisations and some journalists feel threatened by Internet blogs. Hence the hysteria of the Chronicle's response.
Contributing to a blog site is not a crime and council candidates have a right to use all avenues of communication to reach the electorate without being taken to task by a daily newspaper with a vested interest in controlling the news fed to its readers.
Whether or not Strewth was defamatory as the Chronicle alleged, I cannot comment. I know from experience that defamation is nasty, especially for the victim who is left feeling powerless and defenceless. However, Saturday's paper also appeared to overstep the defamation mark with its excessive response and inflammatory language.
A sense of perspective was what was needed and what readers had a right to expect after paying their $1.20. Chronicle readers deserved better than pages of the histrionics of "lies and salacious innuendo", especially when the paper was not without sin and had at times indulged in some injudicious "Gutter Politics" of its own.
Please spare us the hypocrisy.
