if Martin is seriously blogging about "media ethics", how about he stops "reading between the lines' and engages in a little critical analysis of the media outlets who constructed 'the lines' in the first place?

Craig, my very first post on the topic did precisely what you ask. I still think that the questions I posed to the DomPost are valid and haven't been answered. Who were/are their sources and what are their motives?
I have focused on critical analysis of the media's role in this case all the way through. For example, pointing out that the lines from the Veitch camp have been getting a good run in the Sunday papers.
Reading the sub-text in a story is part of the process of analysis.

Russell, not sure why you think I've lost the plot on the blackmail issue.

All I've done is post it as a question, based on the spin coming from the Veitch PR machine.

I have not once said I think that there's blackmail involved; but I think that is a perception that should be addressed on the 'evidence'.

I don't think anyone's going to come out of this affair with their reputation intact. Veitch's lawyers will fight hard to clear his name. The trial will be ugly with claim and counter-claim.

How is the court going to come to an opinion on allegations that are six years old? The well has been muddied successfully on this case.