*Willow for the Kangaroos*
Digging for the truth?
When trying to work out the difference between fact and fiction in the media, I soon found myself amidst outright lies being presented as truth. The reader, most likely dulled by the media pitch, is often none the wiser. The notion of reading between the lines is too easily cast aside as a minor consideration.
But every now and then, someone exposes these attempts to mislead the public.
One of the better examples was in 2005 when the Sydney Telegraph was at loggerheads with the Canterbury Bulldogs.
Following an open media brawl, News Limited's Telegraph descended into the petty quagmire by publishing a photo of Bulldogs winger Hazem El Masri, minus the Bulldog's sleeve sponsor. The Telegraph actually doctored a photo to brush out the rugby league club's sponsor logo.
Check it out...
http://abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2005/ep12/footy1.jpg
So what's the problem here? Why would the Telegraph do something so childish?
It seems the trouble started when tabloid writer Rebecca Wilson did what she is best at doing, crawling into the gutter and bagging out on League for no apparent reason. Its worth pointing out that Wilson is no journalist, she is widely considered to be a hack writer who never allows the facts to get in the way of a good story.
In April 2005, when referring to the Coffs Harbour allegations of sexual assault against Bulldogs players, Rebecca rode roughshod over the facts in saying:
"I will say here that I will never, ever attend a Bulldogs home game again because of the Coffs Harbour scandal ...
... the Canterbury club won’t be able to genuinely move on and claim it falsely lost its credibility until we know the whole, true story."
In struggling for credibility, the Daily Telegraph article had the almost laughable title, 'Digging for the Truth'.
Notwithstanding the lack of presumption of innocence, Rebecca did her best to cast aside the fact that no charges were laid against any Bulldogs players.
Don't get me wrong, Wilson is entitled to her opinion. But in publishing her views, she gave what was at best a cynical account and left the reader with the impression that the Bulldogs were guilty of a terrible crime. Perhaps Rebecca forgot that she is not a police officer, nor is she a prosecutor, judge or jury.
Unfortunately it was not the first time that Rebecca had attacked the Bulldogs. For Malcolm Noad, the Bulldogs CEO, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Noad's response was to bar the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph from doing any interviews with the club.
"We have limited their access to Bulldogs players and officials." said Noad.
Not surprisingly, the Telegraph responded with a slightly more dramatic version, seemingly oblivious to the original reason which led to the stand off. What followed was an order to hit the club where it hurts most and muzzle the dog's sponsorship exposure.
Since then, there's been little discussion and perhaps is easier to assume that matters have been resolved. One can only hope that Telegraph league writers again have access to the Bulldogs and the paper's editors are no longer playing with Photoshop.
At this juncture I should point out that I'm not a Bulldogs fan. In fact, I subscribe to the view that the club has done more than its fair share of bringing the game into disrepute. The Bulldogs' history is a tainted one and they are no angels.
At the very least, however, they do deserve the presumption of innocence before any lynching takes place, and it is clear that Rebecca Wilson had sadly overlooked this basic principle. For that alone, she deserves to be censured. But unfortunately Rebecca is not alone - too many in the media find that creating the news is easier than reporting on the news.
Where does this leave the reader? It does seem that best we can do is to be vigilant enough to try and read between the lines and recognise when distortions and bias are being passed off as fact. Unfortunately, this is sometimes easier said than done.
*680 words*
*References:*
Media Watch
The Daily Telegraph