LAWYER CONFUSED

PP boy Jeremy in a post titled "Remember when journalists gave subjects an opportunity to respond to allegations before publication?":

I may have learned some bad habits from the example set by the previous “journalists” we were watching. Also, it hadn’t clicked that, unlike when I was just some guy with a blog, I can now actually ring the subject of a piece and say “it’s Jeremy from Crikey” and they’ll answer the phone.

Anyway - I’ll ring next time.

Unfortunately for Jeremy he couldn't be bothered doing any research before posting this:

Kyle Sandilands may have been one of the most repulsively cruel broadcasters in recent memory, but that doesn’t justify News Ltd tracking down and publishing the private financial arrangements between him and his banks. This is indefensible, and whoever leaked that material may be in a great deal of trouble under the Privacy Act...

When Jeremy's unsubstantiated breach of privacy allegation is challenged he goes all defensive:

That’s an interesting point, and of course I have no idea if Sandilands did purchase those things through his company rather than personally.

Perhaps he should, as he promised he would, check things out before he posts. Nah, that requires way too much effort -- it's much easier to remain clueless.

Update: Jeremy refuses to accept responsibility for incorrectly terming Sandilands' former sponsors "Quislings":

Who knew Quisling was actually the name of a real person?

(Resolves to throw away the Paul Keating insult dictionary.)

Yep, it's totally unreasonsable to expect a professional political blogger to know obscure stuff like that.

Update II: Online vigilante Jeremy publishes the personal details of a parking officer -- a “miserable bastard”, a “vindictive twerp”, a “petty tyrant”, a “prick” and an “arsehole” -- who was just doing his job.