Media Watch to do a job on ACA/4 Corners Tonight...True?

[cumberlandsashes81]

well I'm ooold and finished my law a while ago, but the test for whether your reputation has been damaged is based on whether what was said would lower your reputation in a reasonable person's eyes. so that's why whether you have actually suffered as a result doesn't affect proving your case.

That's right - you don't need to have any loss to be "defamed" under law(though, obviously, most people wouldn't bother suing unless they were going to get something out of it - it's an incredibly expensive process and no one outside of a handful of QCs actually know much about running a common law defamation case - you also run the risk of making things worse for yourself by having new facts come out during the trial).

In NSW there is a two-stage process: a jury (i.e. the reasonable person) first determines whether the published comment (which can be oral or written) had a "defamatory imputation", then a judge determines the merits of any defence for the comments and finally what an appropiate remedy would be (which could be nothing other than an 8-point font apology on page 120 of the weekend paper).

but the thing is, a big corporation like the sharks can't sue for defamation. cause you can't defame a large group (like a footy club or a whole country). so they might be able to sue for injurious falsehood and to do that they need to prove economic loss.

Apparently, Denis Fitzgerald went to Clayton Utz (i.e. the 4th largest firm in Oz who have some partners who have some interest in this area) for advice on an injurious falsehood action during the run-up to the Leagues Club election - it's a pretty rare tort - the onus is on you to prove that comments were false (which you don't need to do in defamation), you also need to prove the publisher's intent to damage the organisation, and then demonstrate actual loss. Hard and expensive.

 

[Brutus]

Media watch do often attack ABC programs.

Never with much venom.

They have to do it to be seen to be balanced, but when a massive story breaks from one of their programmes it's always one way traffic in favour of Aunty.

 

[Twizzle]

Why??

because until they told the brother and father it was their sister and daughter, they didn't know it was her

 

[Alex28]

At the start, they explained that there are two sides, the legal, and the moral. Then they decided that they'd take the moral side.

Exactly the same side that Channel Nine and the NRL went when they sacked Matthew?

 

[myanonymoususername]

because until they told the brother and father it was their sister and daughter, they didn't know it was her

Does anyone actually believe that?

More likely it was just a polite way of telling the reporter to f**k off - by denying any knowledge of it.

 

[macavity]

Does anyone actually believe that?

More likely it was just a polite way of telling the reporter to f**k off - by denying any knowledge of it.

gotta wonder if she was so distressed, suicidal, etc, why they didn't seek to get to the bottom of it?

she told all her workmates but wouldn't confide in her family? wouldn't her friends who knew tell her family why she was on such a downward spiral?

its all a bit too suss.

 

[sportive cupid]

Don't get me wrong anonymoususername, I love a good Weidler bashing but by doing it they didn't address the inaccuracies and lack of research performed by the 4C program, and the clear agenda it held. Nor did it question it's integrity in using "character witnesses" such as Palavi and Durezza...

Well they are players in this whole game.Actually I have had another look at the transcript of the program as well as the extended interview with Ms Palavi. They seemed to have chosen to include the footage of Ms Palavi which paints her and those like her as one of the factors which is the problem.

Ms Palavi wasn't used as a witness or indeed to make any comment on what happened in Christchurch. I think you might be confusing the young lady from Newcastle.It isi her that speaks at the end ofo the program.

I reckon that the main mistake 4 corners made was to use Mathew Johns name.I believe that then turned it into a campaign to save or bary him.I feel thats were the extreme views came to the fore.I don't think they have been helpful for the NRL,Mathew Johns,or anyone else involved.

I feel that if they had of left that small detail out then the debate could be more rational and better directed.
But it is done now.

 

[sportive cupid]

gotta wonder if she was so distressed, suicidal, etc, why they didn't seek to get to the bottom of it?

she told all her workmates but wouldn't confide in her family? wouldn't her friends who knew tell her family why she was on such a downward spiral?

its all a bit too suss.

It's not uncommon for teenagers and young adults to turn to their peers rather than their parents. It's also not uncommon for young people who feel distressed or embaressed by something they have done to tell no one the truth.They often tell others less close to them a story which allows them to start testing out what they can reveal.

 

[millersnose]

and its not uncommon for drama queens to tantrum until they get the attention they feel they are due

perhaps gangbanging room full of blokes was ok for the moment but a few years later when the looks begin to fade perhaps drawing attention to past conquests may bring back memories of a time when she may have thought she was important

 

[Timmah]

Well they are players in this whole game.Actually I have had another look at the transcript of the program as well as the extended interview with Ms Palavi. They seemed to have chosen to include the footage of Ms Palavi which paints her and those like her as one of the factors which is the problem.

Ms Palavi wasn't used as a witness or indeed to make any comment on what happened in Christchurch. I think you might be confusing the young lady from Newcastle.It isi her that speaks at the end ofo the program.

I reckon that the main mistake 4 corners made was to use Mathew Johns name.I believe that then turned it into a campaign to save or bary him.I feel thats were the extreme views came to the fore.I don't think they have been helpful for the NRL,Mathew Johns,or anyone else involved.

I feel that if they had of left that small detail out then the debate could be more rational and better directed.
But it is done now.

That's just it, they opened it up for vigorous debate by singling out the one bloke who was then summarily hung out to dry.

As Gus said though, it's still the sledgehammer the game needed.

 

[macavity]

As Gus said though, it's still the sledgehammer the game needed.

dont agree whatsoever.

we got that sledge hammer when your team played up in Coffs.

dragging up things from 7 years ago when most clubs have had radical culture shifts in that time is not helpful.

 

[Timmah]

dont agree whatsoever.

we got that sledge hammer when your team played up in Coffs.

dragging up things from 7 years ago when most clubs have had radical culture shifts in that time is not helpful.

I do agree, because **&^*&^s like Palavi show that in some way the culture is still out there in some small facets. I think what Bruno Cullen said is probably most accurate - we can never 100% erase this sort of behaviour but we can work 101% at educating people and changing attitudes.

 

[bartman]

As Gus said though, it's still the sledgehammer the game needed.

Yep, agree totally.

Interesting there's still some resistance to that concept among fans... I'd hate to think of the resistance that might be there within the game, stopping the code from increasing its potential public reach.

 

[macavity]

I do agree, because **&^*&^s like Palavi show that in some way the culture is still out there in some small facets. I think what Bruno Cullen said is probably most accurate - we can never 100% erase this sort of behaviour but we can work 101% at educating people and changing attitudes.

so.... its the players/clubs fault that groupies seek the players out for sex?

huh?

as for old Bruno - he would have to be the CEO with the least credibility in the NRL when it comes to these matters.

 

[Timmah]

Don't get me wrong bartman, I think the media's going overboard and they're the ones who give the public their poor perception of the game - the NRL needs to work on it's relationship with the media if they're to turn it around. There's lots of areas that require work.

 

[Shorty]

Of course there is resistance, Bart, culture is the key word here.

 

[Timmah]

so.... its the players/clubs fault that groupies seek the players out for sex?

huh?

as for old Bruno - he would have to be the CEO with the least credibility in the NRL when it comes to these matters.

:? The girls can seek them out all they like and while they are a massive part of the problem, surely you can see the converse argument that if they don't "put it in them" then we go a lot of the way to solving the problem.

Bruno might lack credibility on these matters but that doesn't mean we should automatically dismiss his comments, he's got a point.

 

[macavity]

now your argument is that young single men should not have casual sex with women who offer it to them?

its been a while since I was single (or young ) but I certainly would not have been happy to be held to such a standard for no reason other than to satisfy someone elses (i.e. bourbon beccys) moral views.

If everything is consensual and people are treated with respect all round I see no problem with players acting the same as any other young australian male. I really fail to see what justification there is to hold them to a "higher" moral standard than the rest of society due to their profession.

what next, do we ban lawyers from casual sex? police men? public servants?

or do we just go the whole hog and impliment sharia law?

 

[bartman]

Don't get me wrong bartman, I think the media's going overboard and they're the ones who give the public their poor perception of the game - the NRL needs to work on it's relationship with the media if they're to turn it around. There's lots of areas that require work.

Ah, so you're kind of half ways there... realising the game has to do something (PR) in relation to its media perception, but not yet saying that its employees/players need to improve their outlook to help the game's PR efforts be effective.

You're doing better than most in here Timmah - and if you're almost caught up to two weeks ago, then maybe some others here will follow in your path, and there may be some hope.

Of course there is resistance, Bart, culture is the key word here.

Indeed Shorty. Indeed.

 

[myanonymoususername]

gotta wonder if she was so distressed, suicidal, etc, why they didn't seek to get to the bottom of it?

she told all her workmates but wouldn't confide in her family? wouldn't her friends who knew tell her family why she was on such a downward spiral?

its all a bit too suss.

Wow, my whole point there went right over your head.

Who knows if she confided in her family? Who knows what they did to support her? Other than them and her.

Its quite likely the family simply denied knowing anything simply to avoid the reporters questions. Its more polite than saying "f**k off".