All quiet on the Media front

[Mybludog]

Just thinking how funny it is the way the Media work.

Very rarely do they report the GOOD side of things.

No sensational headlines to report so they just drop things like a bag of spuds

If there's nothing bad to report, then they report nothing

 

[WAMF]

Mate, very true.
When was the last time you read about all of the 250 flights a day landing safely at Kingsford Smith?

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Yeah how about how quiet it's gotten on radio,tv & the print media on the Brett Stewart court case

 

[Lennox Local]

Just how we like it.

 

[The Wheel]

Good piece in the Manly Daily today though whihc effectively pours scorn on the police officer who didnt take any note of the alleged assault

 

[Jethro]

Yeah how about how quiet it's gotten on radio,tv & the print media on the Brett Stewart court case

I basically said the same thing in a thread yesterday (but only about the 2 major newspaper companies). After hearing all of the evidence so far, they are probably starting to think that it is a load of crock as well.

 

[Andrew..]

From memory the Telegraph made some pretty broad assertions.

It would be nice to think that they are a little worried about some of the dribble they reported as fact!

 

[The Who]

The media need information that is either 'black or white' - it's not news if it is 'grey' (ordinary) which is what the last few days of the trial seem to have been. (that's why attending a Des Hassler press conference rarely produces a newsworthy story).
So, the media will cover the Crown's allegations, which is where they get the prosecution's side of things. This is the salacious 'news'. The media may then cover some of the defence claims, but denying something is never as newsworthy as asserting it. And when experts are involved the poor old journo often can't understand the significance of what's being said (I know, I was a court hack in my early days). The media will then drop off until the two sides wrap up, and then they will report on the outcome.
Almost always, a guilty verdict will receive more coverage than an innocent one. That's how the phrase 'trial by media' came about.
TV is much worse than newspapers because they always sensationalise things, and their reporters don't have a clue about correct court reporting. They'll show the poor defendant walking into court and outlining the allegations, then they may not even report on the outcome if it is 'not guilty'. I've seen this many times.

 

[Brissie Kid]

From memory the Telegraph made some pretty broad assertions.

It would be nice to think that they are a little worried about some of the dribble they reported as fact!

I was too drunk to remember anything, says Brett Stewart
Article from: The Daily Telegraph
By Josh Massoud and Paul Kent
March 10, 2009 12:00am

MANLY fullback Brett Stewart was so drunk he cannot remember allegedly attacking a teenage girl but witnesses claim the footballer had to be pulled off the 17-year-old.

The above story has disappeared off the web, but you can still read it here:
http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=6913078&postcount=2063

 

[WAMF]

And this one -
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/manly-sea-eagles/father-says-brett-stewarts-penis-visible-20100204-nfz4.html

 

[cc eagle]

This is why we have a big thank you to DSM5 for keeping us all updated with the court proceedings everyday,if we relied on print & tv we'd get sweet FA. until the verdict.

 

[The Wheel]

Wish he would hurry up with todays report, I see he is on line, must be a slow typist or there is a lot to report on from this morning