My email to Media Watch

  • 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.

MadMarcus

Toovey for NRL CEO
Dear Media Watch

I have been a long time viewer of your program.

I wanted to bring to your attention (if you are not aware of it already) the disgraceful reporting around the sexual assault charges made against Manly rugby league player Brett Stewart in March 2009.  There is plenty woefully inaccurate material still online.

One of the most disturbing pieces of 'journalism' is this one by Josh Massoud and Paul Kent (http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25164758-23214,00.html).  This was sprawled across the front and back pages of News Ltd's Daily Telegraph at the time and is still appearing on New Ltd's Fox Sports website over 18 months after being published, despite containing allegations not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart.  The headline, despite starting with the words 'Stewart claims...' is in fact the complete opposite of what Stewart testified in Court (which was obviously deemed credible evidence by the jury), and the article goes on to make many assertions which were not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart.  There was no 'crash tackle'.  He did not have to be 'pulled off the girl'.  There were no 'onlookers', shocked or otherwise.

Another piece of drivel which deserves a mention is this effort from Jacqueline Magnay (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/inside-the-boardroom-how-club-leadership-ignored-gallops-pleas-20091123-j1ae.html).  Deceptive phrasing from Magnay makes it appear that there is web camera footage of the assault taken by a neighbour.  In this other article (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/new-evidence--police-seize-neighbours-video-of-stewart-ruckus-20091123-izvc.html), which appeared in the SMH on the same day, it is clear that the footage was in fact of the confrontation between Stewart and the girl's father.  There was no footage of the alleged assault (well there wouldn't be, because it never happened).

I understand that journalists can't produce 100% accurate stories 100% of the time, but surely where a story has the capacity to cause irreprable damage to a person's reputation like this story has had on Stewart's reputation, the organlsiation who proposes to publish the story has a duty to ensure that it is based on a sound foundation.  The stories certainly haven't done the girl, who suffers from a mental illness, any favours either.

In these cases it seems that, at best, the journalists negligently relied on unnamed and unreliable sources, without a care in the world for the impact their actions might have on Stewart or the girl.  At worst, they simply made their stories up.  Perhaps it was naive of me to think that the Daily Telegraph was slightly more credible than New Idea.  The NRL's role in siding with the media and suspending Stewart for 4 weeks shouldn't go unnoticed either, particularly given that they are half owned by News Ltd, who is responsible for publishing half this rubbish.

Many of these 'journalists' have been unusually quiet since Stewart's not guilty verdict was handed down.  Many people to this day still believe he might have done it.  Stewart will have to live with that for the rest of his life.  It is only right that the finding of NOT GUILTY handed down by a jury of Stewart's peers in September 2010 is reported as widely and as forcefully as the finding of GUILTY handed down by the media in March 2009.

Kind regards
 
+1

Great work MM. Love it.

You could see that it hurt especially thinking what the kids thought of him. As he said, it was the public, or the women. It was always the Parents and children. It is just a sad case what the media has done to the community as a whole. Pray that Stewart regains that confidence he once had in public.
 
Dan Dresden link said:
Well done MadMarcus!

Is this correct?
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/new-evidence--police-seize-neighbours-video-of-stewart-ruckus-20091123-izvc.html

He said Stewart was banned not because of the charge but because he ignored his duty to the game when he was refused service and later thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel two days after launching the new season.
  That's what he's hiding behind.  Keep in mind the launch referred to there was the advert for the NRL, 2 days before the Manly launch and the night in question.

However, Gallop hasn't really demonstrated that Stewart was intoxicated in a way that breached the player obligations to the NRL, nor has he been consistent since (eg Thurston 2 weeks ago). 

Had the girl/father's false allegations not been made against Stewart all of this would have passed without comment, as it would just be a player having a few beers and going home to his girlfriend.  There'd be no players in the NRL left if they all received a 4 week suspension ever time they did that.
 
Excellent work Marcus.  Getting an outcome through these means is a lot better than some of the other ideas that have been tossed up lately.  I hope they take it on board.
 
This is the best idea yet.

The vermin that sold an innocent mans reputation for their next piece of baseless sensationalism must be dragged through the mud until they can no longer walk down the street without people looking at them as though they wish to cause great harm upon them.
 
Awesome work MadMarcus. Pretty much sums up what we are all thinking about these scum bag journos. These tossers really need to explain their themselves and at the very least make an apology to Brett and his family.
 
Well done Marcus. I think you may gain some traction with this approach. Media Watch is usually balanced, and there is a good story here. So keep us informed if you hear anything as we'll all want to be watching MW (which, co-incidentally, are great initials)
 

Latest posts

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