About as remorsal the media will get
- Thread starter Zep
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
You are also going to get a better response if you drop the hot hotheadedness and rather than attack, plead your case and your reasons.
In the history of mankind, rarely has anyone listened when they are being attacked in such a manner.
just some advice is all. If you actually want the results you are asking for rather than an opportunity to vent your frustration, you would be better to do it in a slightly different manner and use terms like "I feel"
In the history of mankind, rarely has anyone listened when they are being attacked in such a manner.
just some advice is all. If you actually want the results you are asking for rather than an opportunity to vent your frustration, you would be better to do it in a slightly different manner and use terms like "I feel"
Hit it absolutely on the head about the media hypocrisy. One commercial station last night stated that 'an ordeal was now over for a sporting hero'. 18 months ago they were doing their best to ruin a young guy's life based on speculation and media hysteria.
Ryan
Journey Man
Dan link said:
Dan link said:
Not so. Statements should be supplemented with "alleged" and / or "to be confirmed" or something along those lines.
It's one the the first thing a writer is taught.
There's a difference between a blog, and news piece.
She could be torn to ribbons legally, and knows it. More people should get on board....hopefully including the police.
Give her feedback.....make her feel as she has to others.....when she needs to pay compensation...will ONLY be when she realises she was in the wrong.
I'm yet to receive her response about her boss' E-mail address. I'm almost most certain she wouldn't divulge such info.
Is there a media ombudsman? I'd love to show them her responses to me.
Great work Ryan and Rex, she is an absolute disgrace. She is constantly talking about how these sports stars have to be role models for her kids. Well what kind of morals is she teaching her kids by writing inaccurate and harmful articles that destroy peoples lives just to fill her two pages in that trashy paper.
Is it actually possible for her to be sued by the Stewarts? Or are the media protected under some bullsh*t law? I would have thought that if they could be sued several people would have taken them for all they're worth by now. Although I notice David Beckham is attempting to take down one of the trashy magazines in the US.
Is it actually possible for her to be sued by the Stewarts? Or are the media protected under some bullsh*t law? I would have thought that if they could be sued several people would have taken them for all they're worth by now. Although I notice David Beckham is attempting to take down one of the trashy magazines in the US.
Ryan link said:
Dan link said:
Not so. Statements should be supplemented with "alleged" and / or "to be confirmed" or something along those lines.
It's one the the first thing a writer is taught.
There's a difference between a blog, and news piece.
She could be torn to ribbons legally, and knows it. More people should get on board....hopefully including the police.
Give her feedback.....make her feel as she has to others.....when she needs to pay compensation...will ONLY be when she realises she was in the wrong.
I'm yet to receive her response about her boss' E-mail address. I'm almost most certain she wouldn't divulge such info.
Is there a media ombudsman? I'd love to show them her responses to me.
[/quote]
In the eyes of the law, there is little difference between blogs and news articles. Defamation is defamation, unless it is slander or liable
As for one of the first things you are taught, that is not true. shorthand is one of the first things you start learning.
Alleged etc only come into it to protect yourself. The press however have certain other protections and rights, including the right to report on the information they are given, it all goes back to the source rather than the author.
Yes there is an ombudsman for media. However you are pushing **** up hill with this one, but I wish you luck, I also suggest that you check the laws you are referring to and then check your posts to ensure you fall within those laws. Once you have posted anything on this site, you are responsible for it and any outcomes, not me.
however I would be careful about asserting that someone has defamed another person, as there is a chance that may also be seen as the same
Hopefully Brett can get some deals with the non-News outlets and sue that slapper. It seemed to be pretty central to the case the whole "too pissed to remember" statements and she has stated that Stewart said that. There were wuite a few things reported that have turned out to not be true.
Hi Guys, something that might be important in what you send to her.
I'm a studying journalist - yes don't kill me please.. But anyway, this is the AJA Code of ethics which is derived fromm the MEAA Journalism Code of Ethics to which all Australian Journalists are advised to abide by. Most papers in fact maintain that their journalists do abide by them. Here they are anyway:
AJA CODE OF ETHICS
Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to
Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others
1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.
2. Â Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances.
4. Â Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Â Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Â Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain. Â
6. Â Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Â Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8.  Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Â Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Â Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Â Do not plagiarise.
11. Â Respect private grief and personal privacy. Â Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Â Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
Im sure she has crossed a few lines in this that you could throw at her. The smarter you get in her responses, the harder and stupider it is for her to throw nonsense back..
I'm a studying journalist - yes don't kill me please.. But anyway, this is the AJA Code of ethics which is derived fromm the MEAA Journalism Code of Ethics to which all Australian Journalists are advised to abide by. Most papers in fact maintain that their journalists do abide by them. Here they are anyway:
AJA CODE OF ETHICS
Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to
Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others
1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.
2. Â Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances.
4. Â Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Â Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Â Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain. Â
6. Â Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Â Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8.  Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Â Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Â Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Â Do not plagiarise.
11. Â Respect private grief and personal privacy. Â Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Â Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
Im sure she has crossed a few lines in this that you could throw at her. The smarter you get in her responses, the harder and stupider it is for her to throw nonsense back..
Last edited by a moderator:
tractorboy
Reserve Grader
Great work Ryan, i have also sent her an email, doubt i'll get a reply, I didn't attack her personally as much as i wanted to. Depending on any reply I will then do that. I merely said the bleeding obvious about what wonderful people the Stewart's are and Brett and Glenn are a credit to their parents, and a few other things.
Ryan
Journey Man
Dan link said:
Dan link said:
Not so. Statements should be supplemented with "alleged" and / or "to be confirmed" or something along those lines.
It's one the the first thing a writer is taught.
There's a difference between a blog, and news piece.
She could be torn to ribbons legally, and knows it. More people should get on board....hopefully including the police.
Give her feedback.....make her feel as she has to others.....when she needs to pay compensation...will ONLY be when she realises she was in the wrong.
I'm yet to receive her response about her boss' E-mail address. I'm almost most certain she wouldn't divulge such info.
Is there a media ombudsman? I'd love to show them her responses to me.
[/quote]
In the eyes of the law, there is little difference between blogs and news articles. Defamation is defamation, unless it is slander or liable
As for one of the first things you are taught, that is not true. shorthand is one of the first things you start learning.
Alleged etc only come into it to protect yourself. The press however have certain other protections and rights, including the right to report on the information they are given, it all goes back to the source rather than the author.
Yes there is an ombudsman for media. However you are pushing s**t up hill with this one, but I wish you luck, I also suggest that you check the laws you are referring to and then check your posts to ensure you fall within those laws. Once you have posted anything on this site, you are responsible for it and any outcomes, not me.
however I would be careful about asserting that someone has defamed another person, as there is a chance that may also be seen as the same
[/quote]
So there is no difference between an opinion piece, and factual news? Have you ever heard of actors and / or actresses suing a magazine or paper for printing incorrect information.
By your way of thinking, that would, should and could never happen. It's open slather.
For the record, there is a difference between asking a question Dan, and making a statement. I stated fact, and posed probing questions.
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 37 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -13 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -36 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 2 |
