I learned yesterday about another example of a horrendous, irresponsible, rating seeking, character assassination by the media, this time carried out by a TV station.
They apparently had some years ago run a segment on an eyeclinic and were, unfairly as the court decided, criticising that particular business.
Fortunately this time the people concerned were able to stand up and defend themselves and as a consequence were rewarded some 800K + compensation in court very recently.
I hate to think how much money had to be outlayed in legal expenses by both sides in order to arrive at this outcome.
All of this unwelcome publicity was said by the defense to have been carried out in the public’s interest.
I would think that just this one example is sufficient to prove my point that the media acts in an irresponsible manner.
I can of course give many other examples [including a story about a media mogul who went on a whore hiring spree, getting four, yes, FOUR, callgirls to fly over from Las Vegas to London for the weekend at a cost of reputedly $ 10,000 each (presumably US dollars) to provide some entertainment – I am assuming for himself].
This happened some years ago and if I remember correctly the story appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald with deafening silence from
so many other media.I would have thought that, seeing the personage involved, such a story would have made headline news anywhere even if it happened to involve one’s boss.
Not so.
In my book, omitting big news is in the same class as actually running a biased story.
As it turned out, selective news reporting is still very much alive.
Anyone still wants to argue that the media play fair and square and are bastions of the truth and fearless in bringing the news to the public ?
Pisces
Here we go again !!!
LMAO……
ok everyone… FLAK JACKETS ON !!!!!
I am sorry, but this all gets a little tedious after a while. There are always going to be people out there hoping to gain from others misfortunes and perhaps this includes the media as well. However there seems no point in constantly whining about it. For all those that are out there making life seem disgusting there are millions more trying to do the right things.
I say get out there and live life the best way that YOU can! Try to look at the positives and not focus on the negatives. Dress up as a clown and head on down to the Westmead Childrens Hospital and cheer some of those brave little souls with all sorts of reasons to look down on life. I garauntee your perspective will change when you see how these little humans cope with the challenges thrown at them.
Sure, sometimes life can be disappointing…or rather people living life can be disappointing but there is always the opportunity to focus your energy on helping life get better. It’ll change your life as well as those you help.
It sounds like a cliche but it’s true.
From someone who knows,
Rachel.
Pisces,
Is that the best you’ve got?
Explain to me how a media mogul hiring four hookers is news… if he raped four women it’s news, but if he’s done something entirely legal, how is it news? It’s well known in Canberra that federal pollies use hookers regularly, but it’s not against the law.
As for your case in terms of the defamed eye clinic… if the journo stuffed up, then they should get in trouble, I can’t be any clearer than that. Humans make mistakes, I just don’t agree with your view that “THE MEDIA” are all out to cover stories and take angles for the wrong reasons.
Anyway, I don’t expect that you’ve even bothered to read my responses in the locked topic… If you did than I’m surprised that you seemingly can’t agree that I’m not one eyed in my argument about this…
r
richmond, good to see you’re not [oneeyed]
Because being [oneeyed2] is not a good thing.
kay henry
Let’s make this fair.
Pisces, what do you do to pay the bills?
>>As for your case in terms of the defamed eye clinic… if the journo stuffed up, then they should get in trouble, I can’t be any clearer than that. Humans make mistakes, I just don’t agree with your view that “THE MEDIA” are all out to cover stories and take angles for the wrong reasons.<<
Well I have had a few days to think about whether to respond or not to respond and the result is that I simply MUST respond. Trying to get you Richmond to see things a bit more my way.
After all, as you are my most favourite moderator by far I couldn’t possibly retire without at least responding to your post.
Your response shown in the first paragraph of this post appears to indicate that you feel that it isn’t ‘The Media’ or even a particular “Media Organisation’ which is responsible for character assassination so much as the individual journalist.
That of course is balderdash considering that there is a whole hierarchy above the journalist who could jump in at anyone time to prevent a biased and untrue story going to air (or in print).
So the guilt is to be shared collectively, i.e. with the management structure, including the board.
It couldn’t possibly be correct that management is caught by surprise. There just have been too many court cases lost over the years by the different media companies for management not to be aware of the dangers.
In other words ‘The Media’ have suffered too many painful fines by now not to have had safeguards in place if they wanted to.
If there is any doubts wouldn’t it make sense to take legal advice before running a doubtful story ? Could we possibly believe that management is so dumb as not to know of this avenue ? Surely not.
This clearly indicates that they are going into spurious though sensational, rate attracting, stories with their eyes wide open.
I note, Richmond, that in previous post you have said as much as that you too don’t like programs like Today Tonight.
But that of course is Channel 7 and you appear to believe that your own employer isn’t of course guilty of character assassinations.
Of course not. Except that only just barely one month ago your very own employer was found guilty in court of character assassination on three counts.
Richmond, is that sufficient proof that your employer isn’t any different from the competition or do I need to go to the Law Society’s library to see whether I can dig up some further supporting evidence ?
Pisces
Pisces
You seem to read into things too much and twist them to your liking, so I’ll clarify and spell it out better.
In my response I stated:
>>As for your case in terms of the defamed eye clinic… if the journo stuffed up, then they should get in trouble, I can’t be any clearer than that. Humans make mistakes, I just don’t agree with your view that “THE MEDIA” are all out to cover stories and take angles for the wrong reasons.<<
I should have said “if the journo and organisation stuffed up they should get in trouble.” There, okay… have we sorted that out now?
I don’t like shows like Today Tonight and ACA, I am on record stating as much in other posts, so don’t tell half truths in your posts.
I met Greg Hodge, his wife and daughter the other day, lovely family and since the court ruled that he was defamed by ACA, he deserves whatever payout he gets.
If you bothered to actually read my posts before blustering on in regards to my stance on the media and its motives, you’d know that it is far from one eyed.
Also, if there’s a doubt on a story in the 6pm news, which is the part of the organisation thaT I work in, we run it past the lawyers. Okay? That’s how it works.
As for this:
After all, as you are my most favourite moderator by far I couldn’t possibly retire without at least responding to your post.
I don’t know why you’d bother posting such petulant crap.
r
My final say on this matter, as I’ve just sent to Pisces in a message.
I’m coming from the angle that it is ridiculous to make sweeping statements about the media and just lump it all in together.
I think it’s hard for some people to separate the 6pm news (which is my domain) from the 60 minutes and ACA of this world…
News as it pertains to my job is day to day goings on… elections, murders, car crashes, coups etc etc. And there’s never any debate as to the truth of what’s happened… for example, yesterday’s rundown… yes, it’s the truth that Thorpey got disqualified, yes it’s the truth that there were fights at the Bulldogs game in Sydney, yes it’s the truth that 38 drivers were busted for being over the limit last night, yes it’s the truth that a woman died in a collision with a truck this morning… do you get my drift?
Current affairs or alleged current affairs is much more murky, and I cannot and would not defend some of the reasons why they do some stories and leave others alone. As Pisces says, that would be defending the indefensible.
As I’ve said before generalising about the media is a lot like generalising about the real estate market… there’s so many different sections it’s impossible to make a sweeping statement.
That’s why when people make sweeping statements I get narky, because I’ll defend to the hilt what we do at 6pm in Melbourne every night of the year.
Yes, this is my final say too on the topic (for the moment at least).
Richmond, as far as I know I haven’t had any real dialog with any of the moderators other than Bear (in a private email some time ago).
On the other hand, I have participated in several threads where you posted too.
So my remark that you are my favourite moderator isn’t really as far off the mark as you seem to think.
This isn’t, what you call, petulant crap as I have a genuine liking for you even if it may not be reciprocated.
You are O.K. except for the reaction of jumping immediately to your employer’s defense when you yourself aren’t under attack at all.
As far as your remark “I think it’s hard for some people to separate the 6pm news (which is my domain) from the 60 minutes and ACA of this world…” is concerned , I don’t think it is unreasonable to hold the station as a whole (i.e. the management company) responsible for whatever wrongdoing any one particular segment has committed.
It is such a common principle that I understand that the court sees it that way too.
>>News as it pertains to my job is day to day goings on… elections, murders, car crashes, coups etc etc. And there’s never any debate as to the truth of what’s happened…<<
and
>>That’s why when people make sweeping statements I get narky, because I’ll defend to the hilt what we do at 6pm in Melbourne every night of the year.<<
But no-one is attacking that particular segment Richmond.
Finally, I genuine didn’t have a clue that ACA is a part of channel 9 as I hardly watch Australian TV. I actually looked up earlier today what station ‘Today Tonight’ belongs to as that is what I remembered from your statement (so any half truths were not intended as that isn’t the way I (think I) operate.
Cheers,
Pisces
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
