During Prime Minister Albanese’s meeting with President Trump in the White House Cabinet Room, Sky News journalist Andrew Clennell mentioned Kevin Rudd – former Australian prime minister and current U.S. ambassador – prompting a sharp reaction from Trump. The fallout was immediate: a media frenzy and Liberal Party outcry, with many claiming Rudd’s ambassadorship is now unsustainable.
Social media is abuzz with speculation of a deliberate media setup. While we may never know the truth, this isn’t new. I’ve seen similar tactics used against Rudd before. Digging through our archives, I found a piece I wrote in August 2013 titled “Some lingering doubts about the makeup artist incident,” highlighting a clear example of a classic “gotcha” attempt aimed at undermining him.
* * * * *
The story of Kevin Rudd’s alleged rudeness to Lily Fontana, his makeup artist during the second debate with Tony Abbott, briefly dominated Murdoch media headlines before fading. Yet, it’s likely been filed away for future mudslinging. Moments after preparing both Rudd and Abbott for the debate, Fontana posted on Facebook, claiming Rudd was rude to her.
I say “alleged” because I’m skeptical of the full story, and I’ll explain why shortly.
The Murdoch press pounced on this incident with fervour. For a clear picture of their coverage, check out the Media Watch episode from August 23, 2013, which breaks it down well.
Now, let’s address my doubts about this incident’s credibility.
Several obvious questions seem to have been overlooked. I’ll raise them.
Why would a political journalist, fresh off covering a debate between two candidates vying to lead the country, rush to the makeup artist’s Facebook page? It’s bizarre. You’d expect a journalist to focus on the debate’s substance, not a makeup artist’s social media.
Isn’t it also strange that journalists in one state would know the names of TV makeup artists in another? How plausible is it that a Sydney journalist has worked in Sky News’ Brisbane studio? It’s not impossible, but it raises eyebrows.
And how did this journalist pinpoint the Lily Fontana on Facebook? There are multiple people with that name. After a high-stakes debate, a top political journalist supposedly ignored the event to sift through Facebook profiles. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Why have witness accounts disputing Fontana’s claim vanished from media sites?
Why did Fontana delete her Facebook post? Reports say she was embarrassed, but I’d wager she was disgusted – disgusted at being used by the media.
Was Fontana complicit in this? It’s speculative, but worth asking.
In my view, Lily Fontana was set up as a media pawn. The press, I believe, orchestrated this to smear Rudd.
* * * * *
From the 2013 smear involving a makeup artist to the 2025 White House clash over Kevin Rudd’s ambassadorship, the media’s playbook hasn’t changed: target Rudd and any innocent bystanders. Bonus points if the bystander is a sitting Labor prime minister.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
That is a relevant piece not appreciated. Technique is important coupled with undeclared intention. .
Funny how ‘anyone’ can observe other people’s faults and completely ignore your own!
Tall poppy syndrome, born & bred in Australia, lovingly nurtured by those whose agendas require assassinations of those whom they oppose.
Clennell is a Murdoch bowel ESCAPEE, unprofessional, hunnish, arid, professionally perverted, un-Australian garbagey pox. Adolf lives on…
The question about Rudd was a very deliberate shit stir intended to get just the reaction it did and give the grubs a story to undermine what was an apparently successful visit by the PM. Whether it was/is part of a campaign to get Rudd, it was a grubby bit of journalism and the journo concerned should be ashamed of himself.
I didn’t know this ( from Pearls and Irritations) when I posted my earlier comment. Once upon a time journalists would have stood in solidarity with Lyons and declined to cover a meeting he was barred from. As GREG barns, the author points out, sycophancy and gutlessness.
Many Australian journalists think Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Ambassador Kevin Rudd did a wonderful job this week in handling the corrupt narcissist who runs the United States, Donald Trump.
Of course, forelock tugging to monarchs is an essential in the Australian political leaders’ toolbox (former prime ministers Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam excepted).
But not only did the two of them diminish themselves and Australia — the world’s view that we are the 51st state (albeit we might technically be 52 – behind Israel) was well and truly reinforced — but they were prepared to sell out a core value, freedom of the press and opposition to censorship in doing do so.
The decision, obviously initiated by the vengeful Trump and happily acquiesced to by the incrementalist and timid prime minister we have, that ensured the celebrated ABC journalist John Lyons was not in the press pool for the circus in the White House on Monday, did not seem to bother Albanese or Rudd.
That Lyons, the ABC’s head in Washington, was not allowed to attend the meeting must be unprecedented. Who can remember the last time a journalist travelling with an Australian prime minister to Washington was censored in this way?
The shabby treatment of Lyons was because he rightly asked Trump last month, before a 4 Corners program on the issue, how much richer he had become since being back in the White House. An entirely legitimate question given that, as Lyons wrote a few weeks later, “critics say [Trump is] operating like no president has before, mixing business and politics in a way that may violate the US Constitution and threaten the very foundations of American democracy”.
The 4 Corners program that Lyons put together, and which aired earlier this month, revealed Trump’s overt preparedness to leverage his office for the enrichment of himself and his family.
But as we know, Trump, the self-proclaimed sun king, berated Lyons with his childish “I going to dob on you to your prime minister” type jibe. For daring to ask a question that was not either fawning or timid of this president, Lyons was to be banished.
And Trump got his way. The ABC too, in the sadly customary timid way it deals with matters these days, has said little other than, “oh well we tried”.
So what do we learn from this? That the business of getting on with the corrupt leader of Australia’s closest friend matters much more than standing firm on press freedom and opposition to censorship. It does not matter that the conduct of the president is at once petulant and sinister, so long as the minerals deals, which are not worth the paper they are written on, get done. And most of all, do not upset the man. Whatever level of sycophancy is required, Albanese, Rudd and co can accommodate it.
Freedom of speech and opposition to censoring critical voices should be a bedrock principle for Australian political leaders and one they should defend whenever they see it threatened. Lyons deserved support. Not to be tossed overboard.
But as Lyons said yesterday, Albanese’s office “didn’t really want to say anything much about it. They’re all a bit vague in their reasons. It was all done verbally. They had nothing in writing. So we are left in the dark as to why they wouldn’t allow me to have access to a meeting today”. Gutless is the best word.
If we were a truly independent nation charting our own course in the world, we would be aghast at the treatment of Lyons. But it’s just a side story for most of the media in this country.
Consider the response to the news from Andrew Probyn, ex-ABC and now Channel 9 political correspondent. He told the Australian Financial Review that the rules and conventions about journalist access during Australian prime ministers’ visits to Washington exist no more. “Trump is an unconventional president, and the rules of yesteryear are exactly that.” What Probyn should have said is that Albanese let down his nation by agreeing to soothe Trump’s irrational anger.
But then he is not the only Australian journalist sacrificed by a prime minister so as to appease Washington. When Julia Gillard was signing us up to the dangerous China containment strategy back in 2010 through allowing US troops to be stationed in Darwin, she wanted the WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange thrown to the wolves. Assange had revealed serious war crimes by the US and its allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For all of those patting the prime minister and ambassador Rudd on the back for their efforts this week in making sure we remain the 51st state, shame on you. Both Albanese and Rudd sold out freedom of the press.
Here’s the article that Romeo Charlie refers to….
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/10/albanese-and-rudd-sold-out-freedom-of-the-press-this-week/?