Hi guys,
A little question for all of you here, and something that has bothered me for quite a while with reporters like Ralph - why can they write entire articles without sources?
The Herald Sun is one of the largest newspapers in Australia, and has a very large subscribed following. They print hundreds of articles a week on different topics, all with varying levels of accuracy. While I'm not deluded to the fact that Ralph isn't exactly 'A grade' reporting material, I still find it interesting that he sees fit to post an article with no factual substantiation to back up his claims about Tim Kelly.
I have re-read this article a few times, and many things jump out at me. I have listed these below -
1) He uses the word feels despite no actual conversation with Kelly or his manager taking place
2) He uses the word expected, in order to be non-committal in his piece
3) He directly states that:
"Kelly has no beef with Fremantle despite his partner Caitlin Miller “liking” a recent social media post about Ross Lyon’s sacking. But despite two years at Geelong he has not diverted from his position that he needs to be back with his family in Perth."
The above is stated, when there are several instances where Kelly has in fact diverted from his initial stance of needing to be back with his family. Most recently during his conversation with the media when Geelong were up against Fremantle.
4) The only quotes that he does post from Kelly, are quotes that state he hasn't made a decision yet. While we all know that's just media deflection, if the only substantiated piece of context is one that refutes your initial argument, why are you posting it at all? From the way it's structured, it appears he's put that last to give the article some merit. The problem here is, is that the reader has already had their opinion swayed by the aforementioned, and thus, won't be neutral when they read that statement.
******************
Taking all of the above into account, I do genuinely question why reporters are allowed to post things such as 'he feels' or 'he has', when he has no source to back that up. Doesn't then this come under misrepresentation, as you're stating that someone said something or feels something, but you're not actually providing any evidence to back that up? Doesn't that make him (and the Herald Sun) liable for a defamation suit?
He also has corrected his article since, stating that Kelly refutes this. He has not pulled the article though, and only includes this information towards the end. He again is using this as a way to create headlines and clicks for his newspaper, but doesn't actually change anything about his article.
Why is this allowed? On the eve of finals, with Collingwood up against them and his Tigers one of the big contenders, why is he allowed to unsettle the Geelong team with reports like this, without any substantiation? It's all a bit odd to me. Surely Tim and Caitlyn could sue the Herald Sun and Ralph, given that he uses them as references, but he never actually spoke to them or his manager?
Thoughts?
A little question for all of you here, and something that has bothered me for quite a while with reporters like Ralph - why can they write entire articles without sources?
The Herald Sun is one of the largest newspapers in Australia, and has a very large subscribed following. They print hundreds of articles a week on different topics, all with varying levels of accuracy. While I'm not deluded to the fact that Ralph isn't exactly 'A grade' reporting material, I still find it interesting that he sees fit to post an article with no factual substantiation to back up his claims about Tim Kelly.
I have re-read this article a few times, and many things jump out at me. I have listed these below -
1) He uses the word feels despite no actual conversation with Kelly or his manager taking place
2) He uses the word expected, in order to be non-committal in his piece
3) He directly states that:
"Kelly has no beef with Fremantle despite his partner Caitlin Miller “liking” a recent social media post about Ross Lyon’s sacking. But despite two years at Geelong he has not diverted from his position that he needs to be back with his family in Perth."
The above is stated, when there are several instances where Kelly has in fact diverted from his initial stance of needing to be back with his family. Most recently during his conversation with the media when Geelong were up against Fremantle.
4) The only quotes that he does post from Kelly, are quotes that state he hasn't made a decision yet. While we all know that's just media deflection, if the only substantiated piece of context is one that refutes your initial argument, why are you posting it at all? From the way it's structured, it appears he's put that last to give the article some merit. The problem here is, is that the reader has already had their opinion swayed by the aforementioned, and thus, won't be neutral when they read that statement.
******************
Taking all of the above into account, I do genuinely question why reporters are allowed to post things such as 'he feels' or 'he has', when he has no source to back that up. Doesn't then this come under misrepresentation, as you're stating that someone said something or feels something, but you're not actually providing any evidence to back that up? Doesn't that make him (and the Herald Sun) liable for a defamation suit?
He also has corrected his article since, stating that Kelly refutes this. He has not pulled the article though, and only includes this information towards the end. He again is using this as a way to create headlines and clicks for his newspaper, but doesn't actually change anything about his article.
Why is this allowed? On the eve of finals, with Collingwood up against them and his Tigers one of the big contenders, why is he allowed to unsettle the Geelong team with reports like this, without any substantiation? It's all a bit odd to me. Surely Tim and Caitlyn could sue the Herald Sun and Ralph, given that he uses them as references, but he never actually spoke to them or his manager?
Thoughts?
