Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Seven ..

  1. #1
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,836

    Seven ..

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=95062

    Preety wierd..

    Wonder why only Koch, Melissa Doyle and Naomi Robson and a few other randoms are being charged while channel 7 top dudes and other higher people dont get in any sort of trouble
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  2. #2
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Well, they are the ones who 'broke the law' (allegedly), they are the ones that actually did the act, not the head honchos. Anyway I dont like the manner of this court case is taking as it seems like it is just targeting tall poppies.

    Also, I dont like the idea of bring the media up against charges for doing their job and honest reporting.

    And also as Got_Spin said, its a bit strange that the presenters who just read out of a telepromter and have no idea what they are talking about should be targeted, why not the person who wrote it, or the editors and producers or the network. Not some stupid people who have their brain switched off during the entire segment.

    This whole case is rather perculiar.

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Cant stand Robson, Koch or Doyle so i dont really care
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  4. #4
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag
    Well, they are the ones who 'broke the law' (allegedly), they are the ones that actually did the act, not the head honchos. Anyway I dont like the manner of this court case is taking as it seems like it is just targeting tall poppies.

    Also, I dont like the idea of bring the media up against charges for doing their job and honest reporting.

    And also as Got_Spin said, its a bit strange that the presenters who just read out of a telepromter and have no idea what they are talking about should be targeted, why not the person who wrote it, or the editors and producers or the network. Not some stupid people who have their brain switched off during the entire segment.

    This whole case is rather perculiar.
    Agree

    But the head honchos, or the middle head honchos would have approved this , so why cant they be liable as well- along with the people involved in the programme


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Smudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Deep, deep south
    Posts
    16,669
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag
    Well, they are the ones who 'broke the law' (allegedly), they are the ones that actually did the act, not the head honchos. Anyway I dont like the manner of this court case is taking as it seems like it is just targeting tall poppies.

    Also, I dont like the idea of bring the media up against charges for doing their job and honest reporting.
    And also as Got_Spin said, its a bit strange that the presenters who just read out of a telepromter and have no idea what they are talking about should be targeted, why not the person who wrote it, or the editors and producers or the network. Not some stupid people who have their brain switched off during the entire segment.

    This whole case is rather perculiar.
    Ahhh, if Australia is anything like New Zealand, the Children's Court (or Family Court as it is in NZ) is basically sacrosanct. The laws have been loosened ever so lightly here in regards to covering Family Court cases, but there's still no chance of naming any children (and relations, as a result) in newspaper reports.

    There's honest reporting, and then there's breaking the laws.

    However, I, too, am confused why newsreaders should be charged. By and large, they have nothing to do with newsgathering and, unless they are trained journalists themselves, barely tend to even write any of their scripts.

    As for head honchos not being charged, the news editor (in TV Land) and the editor (in newspapers) tend to make the final call about whether these things go to air or print - with help from the lawyers. As such, their heads ARE on the block.

    The whole case sounds a bit murky for me to follow, but at this point I cannot see how they thought they could get away with it - that is, if Australian laws re: coverage of Children's Court are anything like NZ.

  6. #6
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by age_master
    Cant stand Robson, Koch or Doyle so i dont really care
    I feel like slapping Naomi and seeing her litres of make up fly everywhere

  7. #7
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Voltman
    Ahhh, if Australia is anything like New Zealand, the Children's Court (or Family Court as it is in NZ) is basically sacrosanct. The laws have been loosened ever so lightly here in regards to covering Family Court cases, but there's still no chance of naming any children (and relations, as a result) in newspaper reports.

    There's honest reporting, and then there's breaking the laws.

    However, I, too, am confused why newsreaders should be charged. By and large, they have nothing to do with newsgathering and, unless they are trained journalists themselves, barely tend to even write any of their scripts.

    As for head honchos not being charged, the news editor (in TV Land) and the editor (in newspapers) tend to make the final call about whether these things go to air or print - with help from the lawyers. As such, their heads ARE on the block.

    The whole case sounds a bit murky for me to follow, but at this point I cannot see how they thought they could get away with it - that is, if Australian laws re: coverage of Children's Court are anything like NZ.
    The laws about the children court are the same in australia, but i just fund it puzzling how some newsreaders are being charged.

  8. #8
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Please lock up David Koch.

  9. #9
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156


    What a star
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  10. #10
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    Please lock up David Koch.
    Agreed. He is smug and often has no idea what he is talking about. Quite often he say stupid and careless remarks about conterversial issues that people care quite alot about.

    He is lame and should have stuck to the business reports.

  11. #11
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag
    Agreed. He is smug and often has no idea what he is talking about. Quite often he say stupid and careless remarks about conterversial issues that people care quite alot about.

    He is lame and should have stuck to the business reports.
    I think we've all been guilty of saying stupid and careless remarks, haven't we pasag, old son?


  12. #12
    Cricket Web Content Updater alternative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    11,114
    that is absurd.. they are just doing their job, the top bosses of channel 7 and the news writers/editors should be charged not the people who present it.. TBH its not fair..
    Member of the AAAS
    Member of CW Green | Stedingham Jets Grade Cricket Team | Northside Power

    Manager of South Australia (WCC)

    Winner of AFL Tipping 2006 | Winner of Wimbeldon Prediction 2006

  13. #13
    Cricketer Of The Year Burpey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,584
    I think if they are going to read out something that is breaking the law, it is their fault also. They have to take the responsibility for what they read.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag
    And also as Got_Spin said, its a bit strange that the presenters who just read out of a telepromter and have no idea what they are talking about should be targeted, why not the person who wrote it, or the editors and producers or the network. Not some stupid people who have their brain switched off during the entire segment.

    This whole case is rather perculiar.
    The simplest explaination for this would lie in the actual law that was broken. Consider for instance the possibility that what is against the law is to publically identify the child by name. The person who wrote what was placed on the teleprompter didn't actually publically identify the child, it was the newsreader who did that. You could argue about who was actually responsible, and I agree it's pretty harsh to blame a newsreader for reading out what is put in front of them, but depending on the wording of the law it could be the only possible route in order to prosecute them.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  15. #15
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    The simplest explaination for this would lie in the actual law that was broken. Consider for instance the possibility that what is against the law is to publically identify the child by name. The person who wrote what was placed on the teleprompter didn't actually publically identify the child, it was the newsreader who did that. You could argue about who was actually responsible, and I agree it's pretty harsh to blame a newsreader for reading out what is put in front of them, but depending on the wording of the law it could be the only possible route in order to prosecute them.
    It can be argued that the news readers infact has actus reus but the men rea was missing, thus, not guilty.


    Nothing will come from this, other than a fine... perhaps.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •