Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__And if a media law specialist (Steven) and two former editors (Paul and I) can't mount an argument you deem credible, it might just be time to give up anyway__
What? I am supposed to be so awestruck by the ranks serried against me that I just suspend my views?.
You asked why journalists might be exercised about the principle of going for the lawyers in this way. Paul and I have tried to explain on the basis of our experience, but we don't seem to have had any success in doing so.
It's not about agreeing or otherwise with the Hot Topic post, but it's worth noting that Steven said: "For my part, I doubt Hansford was removed because of the column. The blog post is temperate enough that others have reached that view too."
He also said: "The proper response would have been a one-line letter politely telling the Listener to sit on its thumb. I doubt that any further action would have been taken. But bloggers, and those who host their blogs, can’t always be that brave. That’s what makes leaning on assertions of legal rights in situations like this reprehensible, I think. I would have been much more persuaded by a thoughtful and factual response from the Listener’s editor on the blog itself setting out the magazine’s version of the story. It would have been much cheaper. And much more in keeping with the Listener’s commitment to open inquiry. And it wouldn’t have produced what’s likely to be an explosion of interest in the criticisms…"
Don't be so fucking arrogant.
Ah, but I'm not. And unless you sign your name to this apology-and-correction here, I'll delete all your arguments and commence legal action ...
;-)
-
I don't think I can say any more in general terms without touching on elements of the dispute I don't feel I should comment on.
And if a media law specialist (Steven) and two former editors (Paul and I) can't mount an argument you deem credible, it might just be time to give up anyway.
-
The NZCSC had diner with Don Brash, but some others were left out in the cold.
That's choice.
-
I clicked on it, then discovered, I could take one for a test spin. Better they are offering under there training program, the chance to push one to it's outer technological limits.
Cool! You could make it an art event ...
-
I read thier full page ads in the weekend papers about "they shouldnt treat my dad like a criminal" and thought about the southland woman who they have quiletly forgot about...
To be fair, that was Family First, although I'm sure they have each other on speed-dial.
At least the SST has a formal membership. Family First doesn't -- just a big swag o' cash and Bob McCoskrie. This has the happy effect of making the organisation completely opaque.
And I feel bound to note that under the "three strikes" plan Barbara Bishop would have received the maximum sentence for her most recent assault conviction and been in line for the 25-year job for any subsequent one, which isn't out of the question.
Given her criminal record, a consistent Sensible Sentencing Trust should have been sounding off very loudly. But I'm not holding my breath ...
-
Okay, on the basis that you're really not just being disingenuous ...
Is there anything that happened here that doesn't happen most weeks on newspapers and magazines that is especialy new and worrying?
Yes. You'll always have someone annoyed by what's been said about them -- usually they're offered the courtesy of a letter to the editor. Or perhaps a formal right of reply. In both cases you'd expect the original author to be notified and probably asked to respond.
A legal threat of this level is rarely the first recourse -- and never in the case of a dispute between journalists or editorial organisations. There's a reason for that: because that would be to endorse conduct that would make robust but reasonable reporting perilous and perhaps impossible.
Even a case that does not reach court will often cost five figures. A wealthy party has an enormous advantage over a less wealthy party in such circumstances. You can't stop other parties behaving this way, but I think I'm right in saying that the belief among journalists is that you don't do that to your own.
The upshot of such conduct becoming commonplace as a first recourse is often referred to as a chilling effect.
just because it was on a blog the usual writing and reporting rules don;t apply...?
To an extent, yes. While it is quite possible to defame someone on the Internet, it's informally accepted that the blogosphere is by nature a more robust environment in which readers are capable of assessing the validity of comment on their own.
If that wasn't the case, David Farrar's commenters would be earning him heavy letters most days of the week -- because under our law, he is the publisher of all the malicious tripe his worst offenders serve up. The single sentence highlighted by Steven Price was unwise -- it should have been phrased as a question -- but I invite you to think of the times you've said something in a blog comment of roughly the same nature.
But the blog post in question clearly fell almost wholly in the domain of honest opinion, and the ludicrous dictated "correction" trampled all over the right to such opinion. Dammit, if Gareth Renowden wants to say he doesn't think The Listener's attitude to environmental issues is any good, or that it shouldn't give space to "climate cranks" he has every right to say so, and he shouldn't have to run an "apology" about it.
This is a balance I have to strike all the time with discussions here. Fortunately, most of our readers are sensible -- but there's no doubt that that if this is a precedent, it's one that makes my job more perilous and more difficult.
I should note that Bryan Leyland doesn't appear to have taken such action: he merely mentioned a Press Council complaint. Gareth Renowden has embarked on a similar complaint about Leyland's right-to-reply article. When various parties took a successful Press Council complaint against North & South over the 'Asian Angst' story (which resulted in no more than N&S having to print the decision) there were people like Stephen Franks wailing about "freedom of speech". It would be nice to near those people now.
Any further questions?
-
PS - so an ad for BMWs, eh? What is the world coming to!
The statistics say y'all's a bunch of wealthy mofos ...
-
Did somebody mention Gordon Campbell?
-
this legal action should keep Bell Gully busy for a while. They'll have to slapp Hard News, Kiwiblog, Poneke, Deltoid and the rest.
I bloody hope not. That would put me in a very difficult position, given that I have professional connections with publishers on both sides of the dispute -- which is why I'm refraining from commenting except to decry the involvement of the lawyers in this way. It sets a terrible precedent.
-
Obviously a crime is about both - but our justice system is set up to deal with the perps. Something that deals with locking people up, fines, home detention, whatever really doesn't have a place for victims - we've had a couple of centuries of justice-culture set up to deal with the bad guys/
Ironically, one of the things King was trying to point out to the crowd was New Zealand's stellar performance on victim support, as measured by the recent global victimisation survey (which also had some less flattering facts in it). Victim support is, essentially, something we're doing better than any other country in the survey.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 … 2279 Older→ First