The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is the media's duty of skepticism? > Comments

What is the media's duty of skepticism? : Comments

By Zachariah Matthews, published 24/1/2012

The media's duty to report rather than simply relay is greater when wrong facts can lead to real harm.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
No, Cohenite, the opposite is true.

Perhaps it might be helpful do word searches of the judgment for: erroneous, factual error, wrong, untruth, omission, distortion and inaccurate. You will see these are pervasive and central to the findings. They are not confined to four paragraphs at all.

“Just as an adherence to the value of truth protects reputation, so too will it serve to protect the values which s 18C seeks to foster. The protection of reputation and the protection of people from offensive behaviour based on race are both conducive to the public good: Scully at [239] (Hely J). Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.” Paragraph 390.
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan you are confusing judgemental comments on the errors of fact as opposed to the actual errors of fact. I have given you the Judge's reasons for his decision so when you say it was the errors of fact you are contradicting him when he says otherwise.

This is a precious decision which will have no beneficial effect on the condition and general lifestyle of aborigines in Australia; if anything it will narrow public sympathies, because at the end of the day the point Bolt was making is a legitimate one; which is, are the support systems for aborigines being rorted.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 26 January 2012 8:49:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay. Let’s see if we can resolve this. Cohenite.

“I have given you the Judge's reasons for his decision.” Do you mean paragraph 23? If so, this would seem to support the position that "errors of fact" and "distortions of the truth" played a significant part in the decision.

If Bolt had a legitimate point to make, why did his two pieces contain – according to the judgment – so many erroneous facts, factual errors, untruths, omissions, distortions and statements that were inaccurate or wrong? More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 26 January 2012 9:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If Bolt had a legitimate point to make, why did his two pieces contain – according to the judgment – so many erroneous facts, factual errors, untruths, omissions, distortions and statements that were inaccurate or wrong? More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment."

Precisely Alan.

Thing is, media shock-jocks do that all the time.
Indeed, Andrew Bolt is well known (and well paid) to do just that, stir the pot that is.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 26 January 2012 9:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan says: "More than 20 according to my reading of the judgment."

List them please Alan because I don't believe you; while you are proving me wrong I note Chris Kenny's opinion piece:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/silencing-dissent-wont-resolve-indigenous-issues/story-e6frgd0x-1226156370004

Kenny, a much more moderate commentator than Bolt says this:

"Much has been made of the findings about errors of fact. Errors are always unfortunate and sometimes egregious but in this case they are hardly the central point. Some of what Bromberg cites as factual error is more a matter of emphasis. It is a canard to suggest the case was about disputed facts: it was about apparent offence caused by Bolt's controversial and strongly worded opinion."

And here is one of those points of emphasis/factual errors as identified by the Judge:

"Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Cole was raised by her “English-Jewish” or “English” mother (1A-2; 2A-24). That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Cole’s Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Cole’s identification as an Aboriginal."

Ms Cole's grandmother is discussed here:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2011/05/bindi-cole-photo

The point here is a genuine issue: what constitutes aboriginality and more importantly what level of support should the community give to those who seek to make this distinction on their own behalf. It is an interesting thing that in Australia's early colonial history people who could have declared their aboriginality would probably have disavowed it but now they declare it; if they do that for pride in their heritage that is a good thing; if they do that for reasons of community disharmony and personal profit that is another; which was Bolt's point
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:59:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Cohenite.
We have one faction that wants us to speak no ill & hear no ill of Islam.
Another that wants us to speak no ill & hear no ill of minorities.
And another, that would outlaw any criticism of the IPCC & its line of climate change.
Unsurprisingly enough, there is a fair bit over overlapping between membership(s)of the aforementioned

It is soooo refreshing to hear from someone who can exercise a little healthy skepticism and expose their machinations--and do it so well.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 26 January 2012 7:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy