Seven ..

[GotSpin]

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

[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.

[age_master]

Cant stand Robson, Koch or Doyle so i dont really care

[GotSpin]

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

[Smudge]

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.

[GotSpin]

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

[GotSpin]

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.

[Dasa]

Please lock up David Koch.

[benchmark00]

What a star

[pasag]

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.

[benchmark00]

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?

[alternative]

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..

[Burpey]

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.

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

[benchmark00]

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.