Media lies –read between the lines

  • 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.

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
A thread to record some of the more disgraceful examples of league journalism. Journos sometimes use various devices to camouflage rank speculation and disguise it as credible reporting of something that actually occurred.

Dave Taylor on NRL on Fox last night said he wasn't considering reneging on his deal with the Titans - even though this has been a big story recently. Not only that, he said the journalist who wrote the story contacted him beforehand. Dave told him it was not true, and the journalist said, "I'm going to write it anyway".

James Phelps (News Ltd, Telegraph) has been all over that fictional story. Not sure if he was the one who made it up first.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/dave-taylor-considering-backing-out-of-deal-with-gold-coast-titans/story-e6frexnr-1226309044797

Phelps likes using words such as "it is understood that …" to disguise the fact he can't actually say, "Dave Taylor said …"

The other starting nomination can be the one Cameron reminded us of yesterday, Paul Kent and Josh Massoud's terrible effort that no doubt was a factor in a large damages payout, again by News Ltd.
http://www.news.com.au/news/league-star-...1119083465

Phrases like, "sources close to the enquiry revealed that …", always raise alarm signals. Of course, these blokes went further and purported to quote "police witnesses", who were never heard of again and who certainly never gave evidence at the trial.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
The other starting nomination can be the one Cameron reminded us of yesterday, Paul Kent and Josh Massoud's terrible effort that no doubt was a factor in a large damages payout, again by News Ltd.
http://www.news.com.au/news/league-star-...1119083465

Phrases like, "sources close to the enquiry revealed that …", always raise alarm signals. Of course, these blokes went further and purported to quote "police witnesses", who were never heard of again and who certainly never gave evidence at the trial.

After reading the story of Brett and the bullsh*t allegations, it's good to know the facts (by way of the courts) and reading what the jounalists have said. Two entirely different stories.

It does make the jounos involved look pretty silly.
Hang on, Kent looks silly all the time. Fact.
 
lismore_fan said:
SeaEagleRock8 said:
The other starting nomination can be the one Cameron reminded us of yesterday, Paul Kent and Josh Massoud's terrible effort that no doubt was a factor in a large damages payout, again by News Ltd.
http://www.news.com.au/news/league-star-...1119083465

Phrases like, "sources close to the enquiry revealed that …", always raise alarm signals. Of course, these blokes went further and purported to quote "police witnesses", who were never heard of again and who certainly never gave evidence at the trial.

After reading the story of Brett and the bullsh*t allegations, it's good to know the facts (by way of the courts) and reading what the jounalists have said. Two entirely different stories.

It does make the jounos involved look pretty silly.
Hang on, Kent looks silly all the time. Fact.
Main culprits Kent Massoud & Wilson
 
Glad this thread has started, it will be leading straight into the new site I am developing :)
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
The other starting nomination can be the one Cameron reminded us of yesterday, Paul Kent and Josh Massoud's terrible effort that no doubt was a factor in a large damages payout, again by News Ltd.
http://www.news.com.au/news/league-star-...1119083465

Phrases like, "sources close to the enquiry revealed that …", always raise alarm signals. Of course, these blokes went further and purported to quote "police witnesses", who were never heard of again and who certainly never gave evidence at the trial.

The DT have suddenly removed the page that contains the article.
"Too drunk to remember"

Never mind, they can try and hide their work all they like.
Here's a copy they can't get rid of......
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.

Police witnesses told The Daily Telegraph Stewart exited the taxi that had ferried him home from Manly's season launch and crash tackled the girl. Shocked onlookers said they had to pull him off the girl, who had been smoking a cigarette outside her home.


The Daily Telegraph has learned the diabetic Manly star was so drunk he could not immediately remember what took place.

Sources close to the inquiry revealed Stewart had consumed so much alcohol beforehand that he was unable to recall details of the alleged incident when taken into custody by police about 8pm last Friday.

When asked to confirm the allegations, his lawyer Geoff Bellew replied: "I am unable to comment about that because it's a matter of client privilege." But Mr Bellew denied suggestions Stewart had declined to be interviewed because he was too drunk. "That's absolutely, totally wrong," he said.

Stewart has since denied allegations that he sexually assaulted the girl at a North Manly apartment complex.

As the investigation continues, it emerged the Sea Eagles are also considering defying the NRL's wishes and a groundswell of public opinion by playing Stewart - even if he is charged by police.

Chief executive Grant Mayer refused to comment on his future yesterday. "There's no doubt that if things progress throughout the week the board will meet and discuss it. At this stage it is an allegation," he said.

Privately, the club has already sought legal opinion and was told the NRL has no legal standing to ban Stewart from playing.

If charged, it is understood the Sea Eagles are prepared to continue playing him until he faces court, as other players have done in the past.

The NRL's stance on whether players should be stood down depends heavily on the players response to the accusations - in this instance, Stewart has denied the accusation.

NRL boss David Gallop said: "If it was a clearly established fact that a player had committed a sexual assault he would not be playing."

Stewart declined to be interviewed after being arrested and was released without charge.

The 24-year-old had spent the entire afternoon at Manly's 2009 season launch, where he was spotted drinking heavily with team mates.

He returned to the complex - where he also lives - in a taxi about 7.30pm. The girl and her father, both of whom cannot be named for legal reasons, have said she was smoking a cigarette at the front of the complex when Stewart arrived.

Stewart was later arrested and taken to Dee Why police station. He made his first appearance since Friday at Manly training yesterday.

Sea Eagles coach Des Hasler will today name him at fullback for Saturday clash against the Bulldogs.

His on-going selection comes as the Balmain Tigers stood down five NSW Cup players who allegedly raped a 23-year-old woman on the Sunshine Coast after a trial match two Saturday ago. The Daily Telegraph understands all five players have been put on ice until the outcome of the investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WAMF said:
SeaEagleRock8 said:
The other starting nomination can be the one Cameron reminded us of yesterday, Paul Kent and Josh Massoud's terrible effort that no doubt was a factor in a large damages payout, again by News Ltd.
http://www.news.com.au/news/league-star-...1119083465

Phrases like, "sources close to the enquiry revealed that …", always raise alarm signals. Of course, these blokes went further and purported to quote "police witnesses", who were never heard of again and who certainly never gave evidence at the trial.

The DT have suddenly removed the page that contains the article.
"Too drunk to remember"

Never mind, they can try and hide their work all they like.
Here's a copy they can't get rid of......
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.

Police witnesses told The Daily Telegraph Stewart exited the taxi that had ferried him home from Manly's season launch and crash tackled the girl. Shocked onlookers said they had to pull him off the girl, who had been smoking a cigarette outside her home.


The Daily Telegraph has learned the diabetic Manly star was so drunk he could not immediately remember what took place.

Sources close to the inquiry revealed Stewart had consumed so much alcohol beforehand that he was unable to recall details of the alleged incident when taken into custody by police about 8pm last Friday.

When asked to confirm the allegations, his lawyer Geoff Bellew replied: "I am unable to comment about that because it's a matter of client privilege." But Mr Bellew denied suggestions Stewart had declined to be interviewed because he was too drunk. "That's absolutely, totally wrong," he said.

Stewart has since denied allegations that he sexually assaulted the girl at a North Manly apartment complex.

As the investigation continues, it emerged the Sea Eagles are also considering defying the NRL's wishes and a groundswell of public opinion by playing Stewart - even if he is charged by police.

Chief executive Grant Mayer refused to comment on his future yesterday. "There's no doubt that if things progress throughout the week the board will meet and discuss it. At this stage it is an allegation," he said.

Privately, the club has already sought legal opinion and was told the NRL has no legal standing to ban Stewart from playing.

If charged, it is understood the Sea Eagles are prepared to continue playing him until he faces court, as other players have done in the past.

The NRL's stance on whether players should be stood down depends heavily on the players response to the accusations - in this instance, Stewart has denied the accusation.

NRL boss David Gallop said: "If it was a clearly established fact that a player had committed a sexual assault he would not be playing."

Stewart declined to be interviewed after being arrested and was released without charge.

The 24-year-old had spent the entire afternoon at Manly's 2009 season launch, where he was spotted drinking heavily with team mates.

He returned to the complex - where he also lives - in a taxi about 7.30pm. The girl and her father, both of whom cannot be named for legal reasons, have said she was smoking a cigarette at the front of the complex when Stewart arrived.

Stewart was later arrested and taken to Dee Why police station. He made his first appearance since Friday at Manly training yesterday.

Sea Eagles coach Des Hasler will today name him at fullback for Saturday clash against the Bulldogs.

His on-going selection comes as the Balmain Tigers stood down five NSW Cup players who allegedly raped a 23-year-old woman on the Sunshine Coast after a trial match two Saturday ago. The Daily Telegraph understands all five players have been put on ice until the outcome of the investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great minds think alike Wamf check the nrl on fox thread :)
 
Hey Dan maybe we could open another forum - call it bad journalism and we could post all the rubbish they print there for posterity.
 
Maybe we should be careful about publishing it ourselves?

But if anyone ever had any doubts that journalists trawl through forums like this looking for information ... the link to that story was still working when I posted at 8.23 am.

I was very surprised it was still there, but it was. Now it's not, just one hour later. Wonder whose company we have here this morning?
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Maybe we should be careful about publishing it ourselves?

But if anyone ever had any doubts that journalists trawl through forums like this looking for information ... the link to that story was still working when I posted at 8.23 am.

I was very surprised it was still there, but it was. Now it's not, just one hour later. Wonder whose company we have here this morning?
Seriously would you expect anything less from news ltd. just look how low they have stooped in england tapping phones etc.
 
The vindication in court aside it still makes me sick & angry reading that utter defamatory bullsh!t again... Throw enough mud at someone publicly & you can tarnish their reputation forever.

I threatened to smash a scumbag Tigers supporter at Bluetongue earlier this year who was yelling out "hit the rapist" everytime Brett had the ball.
 
Unfortunately these days "journalists" jobs are not to report the news but to sell papers, or get tv ratings and web hits.

Not footy related, but a few weeks ago Channel 9 "News" had a report on One Direction every night for 2 weeks, oddly at the same time the "Band" was being payed to be here to play at The Logies.
 
eagle-rock08 said:
Hey Dan maybe we could open another forum - call it bad journalism and we could post all the rubbish they print there for posterity.

Way ahead of you. I am trying to get http://www.mediabeatup.net finished. It will be for this exactly. though without a forum
 
One problem is that journalists do not have to disclose a source if they are given information on the basis of anonymity. I'm not sure what the exceptions are, that's probably very complicated. The reason for that is that it is generally in the public interest that information is available.

This does however mean that ethical standards amongst journalists have to be extremely high. As for this Dave Taylor allegation - whoever he is referring to should have to front his professional body and - if found to have published something he knew to be untrue – he should be kicked out of the profession.
 
Maybe via PM we could spin out a rumour and see how long it takes to hit the Daily Telegraph! lol
 
Can someone clarify something for me

If say Stewarts legal team put them on the stand and asks them to produce these witnesses, could they just get away with saying "I can't name my source" or some crap like that
 

Members online

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom