News Limited's Apology to Brett Stewart...

[beave]

Didn't it state that the dad said his Penis was hanging out, I have not read everything in here.

I think the real statement was something along the lines of 'his old fella was hanging out'.........

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/apology-to-brett-stewart/story-e6frep5o-1226047831821

He was being investigated, what exactly did they do wrong?

 

[DecoyRunner]

Why is there an apology? He was charged wasn't he?

Just haven't noticed any apologies like this in the past in the media of people who were found not guilty...

The fact they deigned to offer this pathetic excuse for an apology at all should tell you it was warranted.

They wouldn't have done it if their lawyers hadn't told them it was the best way to cover their arses. They were very close to being criminally negligent in their reporting.

 

[Pierced Soul]

i've said it before in relation to other matters, that until a company is absolutely smashed in ltiigation for blatently publishing wrong information or making up shit then newspapers and magazines will keep printing unconfirmed shit in papers. as someone else said, the amount of papers they sold through this would still financially be stronger than any money stewart could get out of them. the other issue which has come up before as well is that players are hesistant to sue an organisation which is an employer.

i think another way to have journalists accountable for their actions is for the individuals who write the story and the editors get sued as individuals so it affects them directly. of course you're gonna write whatever comes into your head if you know the company will take care of the problem

 

[ANTiLAG]

i've said it before in relation to other matters, that until a company is absolutely smashed in ltiigation for blatently publishing wrong information or making up shit then newspapers and magazines will keep printing unconfirmed shit in papers. as someone else said, the amount of papers they sold through this would still financially be stronger than any money stewart could get out of them. the other issue which has come up before as well is that players are hesistant to sue an organisation which is an employer.

i think another way to have journalists accountable for their actions is for the individuals who write the story and the editors get sued as individuals so it affects them directly. of course you're gonna write whatever comes into your head if you know the company will take care of the problem

They published the criminal allegations made against a public figure. There is public interest in the news. A Paper would be "smashed" for making shit up. Are you seriously suggesting there should be no reporting of allegated crime and only conviction stories be run? I really doubt Brett Stewart's situation really sold a noticable ammount more papers, regardless.

I am sure if the players have a good case then they would consider it. I don't know what your limitation periods are in NSW and AUstralia, but if its about 6 years there is a good chance he could consider suing when no longer in the NRL.

The individual journalists and editors are liable for defamation - its just that a senior journalist and editor would bargain for an indeminity provision in their employment agreement so that any defamation action that was not RECKLESS JOURNALISM the employer would foot the damages on their behalf.

The thing is the girl made the allegations. THey reported those. Is it not upto the public to remember he is innocent till proven guilty? Or are you suggesting the public is not capable of reasonable thought thus only conviction when all appeals exhausted news should be reported?

 

[DecoyRunner]

They published the criminal allegations made against a public figure. There is public interest in the news. A Paper would be "smashed" for making shit up. Are you seriously suggesting there should be no reporting of allegated crime and only conviction stories be run? I really doubt Brett Stewart's situation really sold a noticable ammount more papers, regardless.

I am sure if the players have a good case then they would consider it. I don't know what your limitation periods are in NSW and AUstralia, but if its about 6 years there is a good chance he could consider suing when no longer in the NRL.

The individual journalists and editors are liable for defamation - its just that a senior journalist and editor would bargain for an indeminity provision in their employment agreement so that any defamation action that was not RECKLESS JOURNALISM the employer would foot the damages on their behalf.

The thing is the girl made the allegations. THey reported those. Is it not upto the public to remember he is innocent till proven guilty? Or are you suggesting the public is not capable of reasonable thought thus only conviction when all appeals exhausted news should be reported?

The point is that they reported hearsay as fact. Reputable news outlets require one source for an investigation, and two for publication. It covers them legally and ensures the truth comes out on top. Mostly. The telegraph's sports editor cares not for that sort of conscientious journalism, though. He just throws stuff in the paper on the off-chance it's factual, then he can claim a "scoop". Remember when they reported Wesser was a certainty to be dropped? He was named in the Bunnies side the next day.

They would never in a million, billion years actually print an apology unless they absolutely had to, because it's a stain on their credibility. Not that Rothfield and his mates are too worried about that.

 

[Pierced Soul]

They published the criminal allegations made against a public figure. There is public interest in the news. A Paper would be "smashed" for making shit up. Are you seriously suggesting there should be no reporting of allegated crime and only conviction stories be run? I really doubt Brett Stewart's situation really sold a noticable ammount more papers, regardless.

i ahve no problems with allegations against public figures being made, i ahve issues with journalism which attempts to sensationalise "facts" which dont seemed to have been checked up on. it's all well and good to talk to x amount of witnesses but unless you'd going to check up on the validity of the witnesses i'd call it reckless. when you're f**king with someones life (i dont care whetehr its a footy player or joe bloggs down the street) you ahve a responsibility to accurately be checking the reliability of witnesses before publishing what you think will get attention

The thing is the girl made the allegations. THey reported those. Is it not upto the public to remember he is innocent till proven guilty? Or are you suggesting the public is not capable of reasonable thought thus only conviction when all appeals exhausted news should be reported?

please....dont give me the crap about public responsibility of "innocent till guilty", it was reported that he 'allegedly' RAPED her and the stories and slant given by the papers led the public to assume he had done that and there were witnesses etc

 

[Patorick]

Next on News Ltd's apology list:
- Super League
- Rebecca Wilson
- Andy Raymond's Existence
- Etc

 

[russ13]

How about the Fairfax Group, FitzSimons, Zavos especially:


http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/03/13/manly-eagles-angels-have-been-useful-idiots/#comment-578552


have a look at some of the comments.

 

[Bluebags1908]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/apology-to-brett-stewart/story-e6frep5o-1226047831821

This apology should be a full back-page headline, just like the initial damaging headlines.

 

[axl rose]

Next on News Ltd's apology list:
- Super League
- Rebecca Wilson
- Andy Raymond's Existence
- Etc

You left out Laurie Daley aka The Pearls of Wisdom

 

[Patorick]

How about the Fairfax Group, FitzSimons, Zavos especially:


http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/03/13/manly-eagles-angels-have-been-useful-idiots/#comment-578552


have a look at some of the comments.

Fitzsimons is married to a gremlin-faced woman. That's punishment enough for him.

:sarcasm:

 

[DecoyRunner]

Fitzsimons is married to a gremlin-faced woman. That's punishment enough for him.

:sarcasm:

LOL.

My vote for post of the season right there.

 

[Eels Dude]

I agree that they shouldn't and just cause someone is found not guilty does not mean the accusations are a lie , it just means the prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

My comment was directed to him saying that if it was proven a lie. If the accusations are proved to be a lie then the victim is Brett Stewart not the accuser.

For that to happen she'd either have to admit to lying, or be charged with perjury. That would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution also.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

They published the criminal allegations made against a public figure. There is public interest in the news. A Paper would be "smashed" for making shit up. Are you seriously suggesting there should be no reporting of allegated crime and only conviction stories be run? I really doubt Brett Stewart's situation really sold a noticable ammount more papers, regardless.

I am sure if the players have a good case then they would consider it. I don't know what your limitation periods are in NSW and AUstralia, but if its about 6 years there is a good chance he could consider suing when no longer in the NRL.

The individual journalists and editors are liable for defamation - its just that a senior journalist and editor would bargain for an indeminity provision in their employment agreement so that any defamation action that was not RECKLESS JOURNALISM the employer would foot the damages on their behalf.

The thing is the girl made the allegations. THey reported those. Is it not upto the public to remember he is innocent till proven guilty? Or are you suggesting the public is not capable of reasonable thought thus only conviction when all appeals exhausted news should be reported?

They published a hell of a lot more than that

Remember 1 day they had all of their made up story happening in the stairwell, the next day it was outside beside the gate, then they had witnesses that had to pull him off the girl, they had a neighbour that had set up a camera and caught it all on tape

Whatever spin you want to put on it, they are quite simply lies, and the papers should be made accountable for them

 

[ANTiLAG]

The point is that they reported hearsay as fact.

Don't use legal terms such as hearsay unless you understand them. The victim's allegations against a defendant in a sex case can never ammount to "hear say". Also - a newspaper can never present a disputed allegation or a witness's perception of events as "fact". The whole point of the criminal trial is to DETERMINE the facts. Nothing disputed is a "fact" until after the trial.

Reputable news outlets require one source for an investigation, and two for publication. It covers them legally and ensures the truth comes out on top. Mostly. The telegraph's sports editor cares not for that sort of conscientious journalism, though. He just throws stuff in the paper on the off-chance it's factual, then he can claim a "scoop".

From what I read on here is that all that was printed were the allegations made by the victim and witnesses... The public need to remember INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. Do the papers have print that in every story....

They would never in a million, billion years actually print an apology unless they absolutely had to, because it's a stain on their credibility.

Did the courts order an apology be printed? If not, what the F are you on about?

 

[ANTiLAG]

i ahve no problems with allegations against public figures being made, i ahve issues with journalism which attempts to sensationalise "facts" which dont seemed to have been checked up on.

One would hope that the police would have already checked up on the "allegations". IT IS FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE FACTS WHEN THERE IS DISPUTE TO ALLEGED FACTS.

it's all well and good to talk to x amount of witnesses but unless you'd going to check up on the validity of the witnesses i'd call it reckless.

Hah - the paper is merely reporting the process. Is it not RECKLESS that the police let it get so far if there was no credibility to the witnesses? Its not for the paper's to investigate the crime and determine the facts. That is for the police and the courts. The paper's job is to report it.

when you're f**king with someones life (i dont care whetehr its a footy player or joe bloggs down the street) you ahve a responsibility to accurately be checking the reliability of witnesses before publishing what you think will get attention

Hah, the papers are not the cause of this. Its the investigative and judicial process that is possibly F*cking with someone's life - the papers merely report that someone's life is possibly being f*cked with - and bring it to a wider audience. The public spotlight is a bad place to be when allegations are made as one no doubt seeks anonymity in that time [given the ammount of injunctive gag orders sought] BUT its STILL a bad place to be with no paper reports and charges pending too for non public figures. Think mate. THINK. Fame and media attention go hand in hand. If he wanted greater anonymity and privacy then perhaps being a successful rugby league footballer was not an appropriate career.

iplease....dont give me the crap about public responsibility of "innocent till guilty", it was reported that he 'allegedly' RAPED her and the stories and slant given by the papers led the public to assume he had done that and there were witnesses etc

Led the public to assume that one could be guilty before being tried? How could any headline make you forget of the maxim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Its not the paper's fault that their readers are uneducated/stupid. No ammount of slant should lead any reasonable person to determine guilt via disputed facts before trial.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Remember 1 day they had all of their made up story happening in the stairwell, the next day it was outside beside the gate, then they had witnesses that had to pull him off the girl, they had a neighbour that had set up a camera and caught it all on tape

Whatever spin you want to put on it, they are quite simply lies, and the papers should be made accountable for them

So the witnesses and victims had inconsistent stories? That should have assisted the public to realising the significant doubt of the matter. Perhaps the alleged witnesses and victim should be held more accountable if their stories were completely without merit. Dishonest affadavits to the police and perjury are some potential charges in NSW or something of that nature, surely. Perhaps the police should be held more accountable for pressing charges on such flimsy evidence if the case was a dud from the get go. Ditto with your prosecution service. Perhaps there is more going on here and other parties responsible without stuffing up the rights of the press to report news? perhaps the jury was star struck.... Juries are not always the smartest people.

And one thing you guys need to remember - a jury acquittal does not say HE DID NOT DO IT - the jury may even believe on the balance of probabilities THAT HE DID DO IT - all it means is that the crown did not proove its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

If noone is slamming the police or the crown for bringing the charges - then there was obviously some substance to the complaint. Its not the paper's fault that the jury came back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.

 

[dontbro]

They only apologised to lessen the blow in a defamation action.

38 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Factors in mitigation of damages[/FONT]
(1) Evidence is admissible on behalf of the defendant, in mitigation of damages for the publication of defamatory matter, that:

(a) the defendant has made an apology to the plaintiff about the publication of the defamatory matter..

News Ltd is scum and will always be scum

 

[manly40gimps0]

So the witnesses and victims had inconsistent stories? That should have assisted the public to realising the significant doubt of the matter. Perhaps the alleged witnesses and victim should be held more accountable if their stories were completely without merit. Dishonest affadavits to the police and perjury are some potential charges in NSW or something of that nature, surely. Perhaps the police should be held more accountable for pressing charges on such flimsy evidence if the case was a dud from the get go. Ditto with your prosecution service. Perhaps there is more going on here and other parties responsible without stuffing up the rights of the press to report news? perhaps the jury was star struck.... Juries are not always the smartest people.

And one thing you guys need to remember - a jury acquittal does not say HE DID NOT DO IT - the jury may even believe on the balance of probabilities THAT HE DID DO IT - all it means is that the crown did not proove its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

If noone is slamming the police or the crown for bringing the charges - then there was obviously some substance to the complaint. Its not the paper's fault that the jury came back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.

Thats the point you imbecile. there was no witnesses