Media lies –read between the lines

[Dan]

The tragic thing about the Brett Stewart case is that 90% of RL fans still believe that headline that he was so drunk he didn't remember anything. They think he got away with it on the back of some high priced lawyers.

The scoops that wrote that drivel should be banned for life from getting anywhere near a newspaper.

Yes because many of the stories were libelous and as such later withdrawn. They are the very definition of the law, in that they have tarnished his reputation, the fact that, that is ongoing also shows that the apology for those stories was not clear enough and his name is still being damaged by this

 

[Cameron]

Won't somebody think of the children?!!

I wonder if the quest for ratings is still, or ever was an adequate reason for the de-evolution of journalistic standards.

In sport reporting, however, I think a market exists for the reporting we all crave and the hyperbole and extremists excuses are just a reflection of a lack of writing talent, research skills and agendas that they feel need to be pushed.

If Derryn Hinch were alive he'd say "shame, sports journos shame"



He's alive? Well hurry up and say it then!

Don't mention Hinch together with 'think of the children'. You obviously haven't heard of his book 'Fall and Rise of Derryn Hinch'.

The problem doesn't originate at journalist level, they get their cue for standards from editorial level, and they get their cues from higher up.

Whichever journo rang Dave Taylor - and announced he was going to write the story even after Dave said it wasn't true – should be hounded for an explanation by whatever section of his own profession still has aspirations for a semblance of ethics and professional standards.

The journo Taylor is excusing is one of the better ones tony Adams from league week aka the mole he was filthy on Wednesday night and was blowing up on twitter. Because they text Taylor said this is what we have heard we are running a story what's your comments and Taylor never replied to them. There's an article at sportal about it.

 

[Rex]

These are a couple of examples why I never trust one single Journo to ever tell the truth, they are simply there for one reason...to sell papers, get us to watch their shows, or get us to be aghast at them on social media.

Even more sinister than that.

How does one organisation control 70% of all print media in this country? Does anyone still doubt that a job is, or would be, done on any politician or political party that stands up to these monopolistic practices.

As is now being exposed in the UK, the Murdoch empire decides who it deems needs to win the election, and can simply and easily cause sudden and dramatic shifts in public sentiment towards political parties. It doesn't even try to hide its campaigns against political parties. The public imagines it is in control of its own opinions and emotions, and a minority is. As a voting group we are Murdoch puppets. Whoever acts in the best interests of the Murdochs of this "democracy" (Murdocracy) gets elected.

 

[voicefromthehill]

An interesting article in todays SMH links nicely to the discussion in this thread

The Grotesque Media

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Voice, that Link doesnt work.

 

[voicefromthehill]

That should be fixed

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The other side of the coin is this. While standards of journalistic integrity slip into the quicksand of sensationalist media showbiz, serious journalists can expect less and less support from courts and parliaments in respect of confidentiality of sources when it comes to political issues.

Under the guise of 'we must catch the terrorists and criminals', they will increasingly be compelled to divulge sources whenever it is politically expedient. Traditionally reporters did not have to divulge their source, under the 'free press as watchdog for democracy' fiction.

 

[MadMarcus]

That should be fixed

Paul Kent should be fixed. He should not be allowed to reproduce.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

That should be fixed

Thank you. Is working now.