sherb
Hall of Famer
I'm surprised Cash didn't send the AFP in to raid the High Court before today's ruling......
Michaelia Cash - is she wasted in Senate?
- Thread starter GuruJane
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,725
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #277
Shabby press and cosy relationships are part of the problem. Alice Workman could follow through with outing who these other colleagues are ticking her off for doing her job.
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,725
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #278
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Told ya's
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,725
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #281
Why has Michaelia Cash still got a job?!
And this incestuous relationship the Liberal Party has with the AFP needs an investigation of it's own.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
ALmost universal praise for Alice.
2 people sooked about it though.......
Dutton and Hadley............
( also Sharri " LOL " Markson but no one gives a s**t about that hack )
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #283
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
You'd have to ask Peter " Dumb as Mutton " Dutton that mate
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,342
- 117,871
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Because Barnaby doesnt
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Katharine Murphy
14 hrs ·
There's been a deal of debate over the past couple of days about whether the story of Michaelia Cash's media adviser tipping off the police should have been written. With great respect to the various participants, I'm astonished that this debate is even occurring.
The clear answer to whether this story should have been written is yes. I can't understand arguments to the contrary. The first item in the MEAA Code of Ethics says: "Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply."
Reporting this story is not some Gonzo outbreak, or a sign of journalistic disruption, with BuzzFeed as disruptor adopting quantifiably different standards and practices, or a sign that journalism is now the Hunger Games – let me repeat that core obligation in point one of the code of ethics. We have a professional obligation not to suppress relevant available facts.
We also have an obligation in the code not to break confidences. We are required to respect confidences when they've been sought and agreed to. But there is also this provision: "Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source."
I don't know whether confidences were sought and agreed to in this instance, because I wasn't tipped off, but we need to bear in mind the calibre of the information being shared. This was not a cabinet leak, or someone blowing the whistle, or somebody telling you something in the public interest that someone else really doesn't want written – this was a person saying get a camera down to the AWU offices in Sydney in Melbourne.
The tip was the equivalent of putting out a media alert, of setting up a media opportunity that he clearly believed would serve the government's interests.
Watergate, it isn't. Do we need to protect the confidences of people putting out media alerts? I would argue not, particularly when the price of doing that is suppressing information that is clearly in the public interest.
I agree with Michelle Grattan that there is a professional dilemma associated with writing the story if you were tipped off. But that dilemma has to be weighed up against a minister telling a Senate committee on five occasions that her office was not involved in the heads up, when clearly they were involved. A minister misleading the parliament, whether purposefully, or accidentally, is no small matter. It's supposed to be a sackable offence.
I don't think we have an obligation to suppress that information because someone delivered a media alert by telephone for an event/occurrence (a police raid) that would have been made public in the course of the day.
I can't see how that is ethical journalism, when our job is to serve the interests of readers.
I think if there is professional concern about writing the story if you were the person tipped off (and I see why that has to be weighed up, depending on the basis/terms on which the information was shared), then that has to be balanced against other requirements in the code, particularly the requirement not to suppress relevant available facts.
Anyway, this is a long way of saying of course this story should have been written, and congratulations to the hard working Alice Workman for being first to the relevant available facts #auspol
14 hrs ·
There's been a deal of debate over the past couple of days about whether the story of Michaelia Cash's media adviser tipping off the police should have been written. With great respect to the various participants, I'm astonished that this debate is even occurring.
The clear answer to whether this story should have been written is yes. I can't understand arguments to the contrary. The first item in the MEAA Code of Ethics says: "Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply."
Reporting this story is not some Gonzo outbreak, or a sign of journalistic disruption, with BuzzFeed as disruptor adopting quantifiably different standards and practices, or a sign that journalism is now the Hunger Games – let me repeat that core obligation in point one of the code of ethics. We have a professional obligation not to suppress relevant available facts.
We also have an obligation in the code not to break confidences. We are required to respect confidences when they've been sought and agreed to. But there is also this provision: "Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source."
I don't know whether confidences were sought and agreed to in this instance, because I wasn't tipped off, but we need to bear in mind the calibre of the information being shared. This was not a cabinet leak, or someone blowing the whistle, or somebody telling you something in the public interest that someone else really doesn't want written – this was a person saying get a camera down to the AWU offices in Sydney in Melbourne.
The tip was the equivalent of putting out a media alert, of setting up a media opportunity that he clearly believed would serve the government's interests.
Watergate, it isn't. Do we need to protect the confidences of people putting out media alerts? I would argue not, particularly when the price of doing that is suppressing information that is clearly in the public interest.
I agree with Michelle Grattan that there is a professional dilemma associated with writing the story if you were tipped off. But that dilemma has to be weighed up against a minister telling a Senate committee on five occasions that her office was not involved in the heads up, when clearly they were involved. A minister misleading the parliament, whether purposefully, or accidentally, is no small matter. It's supposed to be a sackable offence.
I don't think we have an obligation to suppress that information because someone delivered a media alert by telephone for an event/occurrence (a police raid) that would have been made public in the course of the day.
I can't see how that is ethical journalism, when our job is to serve the interests of readers.
I think if there is professional concern about writing the story if you were the person tipped off (and I see why that has to be weighed up, depending on the basis/terms on which the information was shared), then that has to be balanced against other requirements in the code, particularly the requirement not to suppress relevant available facts.
Anyway, this is a long way of saying of course this story should have been written, and congratulations to the hard working Alice Workman for being first to the relevant available facts #auspol
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
*en LOVED Carmen Sandiego
I'm working on a sequel
" WHERE IN THE WORLD IS DAVID DE GARIS ??? "
I'm working on a sequel
" WHERE IN THE WORLD IS DAVID DE GARIS ??? "
Last edited:
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
*EN GOON SQUAD
NEVER TRUST THE AFP
We think the govt is on the nose, but maybe we aren't aware just how strong the smell is.
Like Malc says, the next month will be terrible
Like Malc says, the next month will be terrible
sherb
Hall of Famer
Here's the article. Good read.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...p/news-story/dc105d0394ebfc2a0ef1cc3a158cb8ea
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Is she wasted? Possibly. Possibly drunk too much grappa before senate estimates, might explain why she didnt know what was going on...
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,905
- 133,497
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #294
These sort of attacks on Shorten and his past tell me that the government knows that they can't win an election on policy. The cruel and venal nature of the Liberal Party has been fully exposed over the last five years, and the only way they can get re-elected is to paint their opponents as worse or at least the same. It's the same tactic, false equivalence that got Trump elected, although I don't think the Australian electorate, burnt already by Abbott will fall for it.
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,725
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #295
Insiders should be fun tomorrow, I hope they bring in Murph
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
I think we reached a " Line in the sand-moment " on Tuesday arvo.
I think Tuesday-Wednesday was the day 75% of swinging voters ( election winners ) called this for what it really was and decided they'd had enough.
All people want is a govt that doesn't get itself sidetracked with " whataboutism " , they want a govt that ******* GOVERNS.
The longer Turnbull leaves calling an election , the bigger defeat the LNP will cop.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
I still keep thinking back to the original leak from the AFP regarding Turnbulls house and drug imports.
The moment the entire weeks narrative changed.
Was the OG leak from a Turnbull loyalist , a Dutton loyalist , a comrade ?
This is where the questions need to start.
Did Dutton leak it on purpose to embarrass Turnbull ?
Turnbull was definitely enraged over it
Most people became aware of this story only as the raids were happening but this goes deeper than that.
.
The AWU media leak is a completely different issue
Either way it's apparent the AFP are " off the reservation " under the control of a sociopath ( at the least ) and even the PM can't control them.
Dark dark times my friends.
The moment the entire weeks narrative changed.
Was the OG leak from a Turnbull loyalist , a Dutton loyalist , a comrade ?
This is where the questions need to start.
Did Dutton leak it on purpose to embarrass Turnbull ?
Turnbull was definitely enraged over it
Most people became aware of this story only as the raids were happening but this goes deeper than that.
.
The AWU media leak is a completely different issue
Either way it's apparent the AFP are " off the reservation " under the control of a sociopath ( at the least ) and even the PM can't control them.
Dark dark times my friends.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Never watched it before but recording for sureInsiders should be fun tomorrow, I hope they bring in Murph
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,725
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #299
You say corruption, I say conspiracy but many would say it's the same thing.
Also, they're both a C word.
Gees, even a Murdoch paper thinks she is a piece of s**t
