Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Its not about protecting anyone, its about reporting news in a manner that isn't defamatory.
And no caught has claimed it is yet
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its not about protecting anyone, its about reporting news in a manner that isn't defamatory.
But that’s not my point Chief. I’m happy with how much the ABC gets in fact I’d be happy for it to get a bit more. My concern is that the ABC makes bad judgement about how to capitalise on the fact it doesn’t the commercial pressures and risk that other media entities do. I think that ABC uses its commercial risk free statement to produce controversial content that other outlets don’t make because they would otherwise face commercial repercussions such as sponsors dropping out.
I would much rather they focus their commercial risk free status by developing Australian drama, giving coverage to less popular sports and restoring local content to regional news bureaus.
in short I think ABC picks too many fights that require it to spend too much on legal advice and representation at the expense of more worthwhile causes.
Regards
S. Pete
Ned,
My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.
Regards
S. PETE
For that they need more money.I think that ABC uses its commercial risk free statement to produce controversial content that other outlets don’t make because they would otherwise face commercial repercussions such as sponsors dropping out.
I would much rather they focus their commercial risk free status by developing Australian drama, giving coverage to less popular sports and restoring local content to regional news bureaus.
That entire argument is a load of sh*t.
The ABC is bound by a charter. If it doesn't comply with its charter it can be stripped of funding.
Even when it does comply with its charter, it is still being stripped of funding.
Murdoch can print whatever sh*t wants to. Almost his entire stable of higher paid journalists have been sanctioned in court for lies, misrepresentation, defamation.
I disagree.
Alan Jones made a disgusting joke about the death of Julia Gillard’s father at a private function. Commercial pressure from sponsors quite rightly led to him apologising.
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.
I feel this comparison demonstrates my point.
Regards
S Pete
For that they need more money.
Their charter, I thought, directs them to report news and make shows to serve otherwise under-served parts of our community. To do things commercial TV won’t do.
It would not be entirely unreasonable to consider Alan Jones satire, but he is not Chaser level satire.
That is quite the false equivalence you have made above
There is also the small issue of the ABC not having "commercial pressure".
I disagree.
Alan Jones made a disgusting joke about the death of Julia Gillard’s father at a private function. Commercial pressure from sponsors quite rightly led to him apologising.
The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.
I feel this comparison demonstrates my point.
Regards
S Pete
If they didn't let Louise "seven - nillgan" post her offending story, they wouldn't have picked such an expensive and tedious battle.
Those statements are not contradictory Gough. You are assuming that a complaint about how the ABC chooses to spend its money equates to me wanting them to get less.
Regards
S. Pete.
Ned,
My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.
Regards
S. PETE
It's money the government takes from people, and it's Porter forcing it to spend that money defending it's right to report news powerful people do not want reported.Yes I have concerns about Porter never said I didn’t. I’m just observing that an impartial journalist might also express concern that the ABC is finding its legal case with money forcibly taken from others. When people talk about legal cases like this we often hear complaints about David v Goliath - the way this story gets framed it’s like Porter (with his privately earned salary) is Goliath and the ABC with its $1 Billion a year taxpayer back bankroll is David. It’s a bit perverse don’t you think?
Regards
s. Pete
There's talk of Kerry Stokes funding Porter's defamation case.
Ned,
My point is they make poor choices about content because they undervalue the risk and cost of legal ramifications. I believe these poor choices are due to an under appreciation of their privileged position in terms of a highly certain funding stream.
Regards
S. PETE
So, if I'm important and powerful and or rich, then any story about me I don't like is defamatory?Its not about protecting anyone, its about reporting news in a manner that isn't defamatory.
Lets return to this after the courts decide if it is defamatory or notSo, if I'm important and powerful and or rich, then any story about me I don't like is defamatory?
Because, at this point unless I am missing something, Porter hasn't won? It's just his opinion that he has been defamed.
And your take is that the ABC shouldn't have written the story that lead to Porter's self interested opinion he was defamed, in order to avoid this lawsuit?
Because if that's valid, we are going to see an awful lot of people that should have stories about them suddenly feeling they are "defamed".
If you have money, a lawsuit for defamation is easy. Writing an article about someone that cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit is impossible ( a lawsuit, and a lawsuit with a chance of winning not being the same thing).
For instance, I strongly suspect that if you respond to this, I will be left feeling defamed, and a lawsuit would be heading your way (if I could afford a lawyer).
On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
Here is a question we can discuss now.Lets return to this after the courts decide if it is defamatory or not
Oh. The Chaser.The ABC humiliated Chris Kenny on national television by depicting him having sex with a dog. They didn’t apologise until the matter went to court.