So were police not forced to break up angry crowds who turned on each other and was Moore Park's memorial footbridge not damaged?
I find it strange that a media corporation could get away with publishing inaccurate statements, if they're demonstrably untrue.
They've done it countless times before - all they have to do is issue an apology, and retract the story.
My dad was the GM for the company that created the subdermal birth control implant for women.
Women started coming forward, saying the product was defective, as women were falling pregnant, bleeding, etc.
The media jumped on it, and went for the company's throat.
During the course of litigation, the company's lawyers proved that the company sponsored, and paid for, events to educate doctors on how to properly install the implant - most doctors arrogantly refused to attend, and so did not install the implants correctly.
When it was all said and done, all the media had to do was retract their allegations that the company was not a responsible corporate member, and that the product was defective, and they issued a half-arsed apology - and that was that.
I saw first-hand the damage this reckless behaviour from the media left behind.
The media get away with murder, because "free speech" is way more important that holding people accountable for their behaviour.
TLDR - the media can say what they want, apologise, retract the story, and continue as if nothing ever happened.
