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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Hi again Cohenite. For Aboriginality to be validated, all three factors must apply: descent, self-identification and recognition by the elders.

The multiple errors of fact are absolutely critical to the adverse judgment in the Bolt matter. Had there been none, or only a few accidental or incidental errors, the claim would not have succeeded. Nor indeed would the applicants have had a case to bring.

This seems pretty clear from paragraphs 8, 289, 355 to 360, 368, the whole slab from 372 to 393, 421, 425, as well as those listed yesterday.

Many commentators have expressed similar opinions to Mr Bolt’s over the years with impunity. You do have free speech in Australia, and all opinions may be freely expressed. As it should be. But no cilivilised society permits the widespread publication of multiple malicious lies.

By malicious I mean “replete with comments and a derisive tone that have little or no legitimate forensic purpose to the argument propounded”.

That’s why it is so laughable for Chris Kenny and other Murdoch apologists to claim the finding “has drastic implications for free speech”. Sheer nonsense.

Kenny may wish “it is Bolt's opinions and the way they were expressed that are at the heart of this case, not his facts”. But it just ain’t so.

So a question for you, Cohenite. Imagine the wide publication of a malicious series of articles and blogs accusing you and 17 of your close friends and family - all named - of serious fraud or dishonesty wherein most of the essential assertions were erroneous, unsupported by any factual basis, factually inaccurate, factually incorrect or grossly incorrect.

Would you agree that such publication should be permitted under freedom of speech?

@Cherful, have you read the judgment?
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 27 January 2012 9:28:16 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
Cherful, you obviously haven't read the Federal Court's ruling.

The law is the law - despite what your opinion is, despite what cohenite's is, despite what you think is the 'public'.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 27 January 2012 9:43:48 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
"Would you agree that such publication should be permitted under freedom of speech?"

That is a silly question; of course not; I would sue in defamation.

Again I think you are avoiding the issue would negates your attempt of providing an example. The cohenite family do not receive government handouts simply because they are declared members of the cohenite lineage with such membership equating to a disadvantage compared to other citizens.

Put into perspective some of the litigants in the Bolt matter achieved success by merit and others through specific and positive government discrimination.

Why do some members of the litigants deserve subsidisation for the same qualities that other litigants have who did not receive the same subsidisation?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 27 January 2012 9:44:45 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
Anyway, back on the farm ... "What is the media's duty of skepticism ... comments?"

Typical modus operandi of cohenite to derail the author's article to his own hobby horses.

Anyone else want to get back on topic?
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 28 January 2012 1:53:55 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
"Until quite recently the social backgrounds and characters of policemen and police reporters were virtually interchangeable...The two groups acknowledged that to a large extent their chances of fame and promotion were intertwined. It was a small closed community in which detectives and journalists made sure to look after each other's interests. For journalists the world of 'police rounds' was like a Masonic brotherhood." David Salter, 2007, p.266, The Media We Deserve

In a way, police reporting has always been a walk-up start. A reporter assigned a police round walked an endless beat of sexy, naked city stories, ones they did not have to find themselves...Police reporters are also prone to corruption. There is a need to take care to avoid the same conditioning that persuades us to see only what we want to see." Chris Masters, 2002, p143, Not for Publication.
Posted by DailyMagnet, Saturday, 28 January 2012 2:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Cohenite.

Precisely. The Cohenite family does not receive government handouts illegitimately. And neither do the complainants in the Bolt matter.

We seem to agree now that false accusations are actionable and that remedial action does not imperil freedom of speech. So I am not sure what issue you think I am avoiding.

The matter of subsidisation deserved or undeserved is for another forum. This thread is about the media and the courts.

If indeed there is rorting of Indigenous programs then the media has a responsibility to expose this. But without resort to allegations that are inaccurate, erroneous, incorrect or wrong. And without derision, mockery and gratuitous insult.

Sadly for Australia, this seems beyond the capability of most of your media.

@Bonmot, Dr Matthews is right in pointing to the failures in Australia. The same seems true, unfortunately, in the US and England. Less so here in France and other non-English speaking Western democracies.

In most cases, the failures seem to lie primarily with the Murdoch media which have led the way in abusing news reporting and commentary to further their political, social and financial interests.
Posted by Alan Austin, Saturday, 28 January 2012 6:57:00 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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