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 24/1/2012The media's duty to report rather than simply relay is greater when wrong facts can lead to real harm.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
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?