The judgment here is not the end of the world, it would be a twisted world that casts Slater as a champion of the rights of others.
Oh, FFS, Dexter. It would be really nice if the freedoms we enjoy had been won -- and defended -- by saintly people with pure motives we'd all like to hang out with. They weren't, and I doubt that's ever going to change because people don't work like that.
Blomfield puts it this way:
[WhaleOil] doesn’t check facts. He doesn’t research, investigate, or otherwise seek balance. He has no regard for anyone’s rights except his own. He has no time for anyone whose views don’t accord with his own. […]
Mr Slater is no more a journalist than he is a brain surgeon.
And I’d most disrespectfully suggest Mr. Blomfield take the proceedings of the Leveson Inquiry to whatever beach he intends to holiday at…
And I don’t think that if you call up Slater and say “here’s some slanderous stuff I can’t say, but you do it and I’ll make it worth your while” (which is definitely a thing that people seriously claim Slater to do, and which would be outrageously scandalous if the NBR or the DomPost did) you should be protected by media shield law.
And nor do I think a plaintiff should be able to force a journalist to disclose a source just by alleging that happened. I think someone should be thinking a little more deeply that Blackie about whether that's a desirable precedent to set.
So having established that no outlet, regardless of the level of professionalism of its staff, will ever be in a position to never publish a retraction, how would you wish to measure the inaccuracy level in a way that fairly reflects that bigger newsrooms have more humans involved so thus have more moving parts to fail? It’s not an unreasonable question, Craig.
It is a perfectly reasonable question. But surely, when you have the staff and resources of a New Zealand Herald or a New York Times they should be held to a slightly higher standard of oversight and accountability that those eeevil blogs? Or is the new normal not “too big to fail” but “too big to be responsible for anything”?
Oh, and out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing can be made but yeah... you think someone at the Herald on Sunday could have saved themselves a lot of angst (and an unusually strongly worded and signed retraction/apology) by asking Sharon Shipton herself if she had separated from her husband.
Would that be retractions against total articles published? Because that’s the only fair metric I can conceive of in the circumstances and it’s going to be a pretty minuscule percentage for all the main outlets.
Sorry, if we’re going to apply the Blackie Standard let’s do it consistently and in my book getting a story a little bit wrong (or just making it up) is like being a little bit pregnant. Look, I'm not carrying any water for Cameron Slater, but I really that much of the "real" media is sitting too comfortably atop that moral high horse.
How about: “a medium for the responsible dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and relevant observations on news”
Well, Ian, find me a tabloid scumbag who won’t argue until the heat death of the universe that that fits them like a bespoke Saville Row suit.
It would be nicer if it were more developed and clearer but I think he’s gesturing towards a reasonably good principle that if you’re an abusive unprofessional dickhead, you can’t shelter yourself and your sources behind a profession you aren’t part of.
You know, this could be a fascinating precedent. So, how many times does a journalist or media outlet have to (say) end up issuing a partial or full retraction of a story before they don't count any more? How about a newspaper that ends up sacking a reporter for printing stories that were entirely fabricated -- that's about as abusive, unprofessional and prick-like as a journalist can get in my book.
Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.
It would be a really tough call for camp Lorde
All fair points, well made Bob. But I'm in Team Russell -- she looks like she's got her head on straight, and is surrounded by good people, so I'm sure however it shakes out it will be done amicably and sans diva-tude. :)
In theory she could do both, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t duties for nominees – let alone artists who perform at the awards, which isn’t unlikely in her case – in the days before. Officially, she’s still playing the show, but officially she’s not yet a nominee. I would certainly expect an amicable resolution if she can’t do Laneway.
Sure, because I'm pretty sure Lorde (and her management) are sensible enough to know being a diva -- and you know, blowing contracted gigs -- isn't really how her brand works. At least, I hope it doesn't. :)
I guess I’m one of the few people that actually listened to the show, albeit it was too cringe-worthy to listen in its entirety Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that they condone rape or rapists – just a lot of coloured interpretation.
Oh, fuck off. I listened to the audio of Amy’s call, and more than once – not least because I couldn’t believe they’d asked her when she lost her virginity. That’s not “coloured interpretation” but a simple matter of fact. They also asked her “how free and easy are you kids [i.e. young women who were assaulted while functionally unconscious] these days”. Again, fact not opinion. Whether you believe me or not, I really wanted to give those two the benefit of the doubt and I don’t throw around a phrase like “rape apologist” casually.
While I don’t have a tone police badge or moderating privileges anywhere hereabout except (to a limited extent) on my own posts, its really not smart to accuse others of speaking in bad faith. You're being massively condescending towards people who have considered what was said in great detail over several weeks, now. And speaking on my own account, to an extent that's been astonishingly unpleasant.