Hard News by Russell Brown

Possibly Marshall should go on OE - that kind of journalism and 'eccentricity' is much more tolerated in the UK tabloids, for instance.

(One of the Sun's leading journalists brutally murdered his entire family* and was reinstated on his release).

* Ok, it was manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, I'm using the term 'murder' colloquially. And he might have had other family apart from his wife. But all killing is brutal, really.

ASYLUM seekers in Indonesia have swung into party mode and labelled Julia Gillard a "hero" after learning they will receive welfare payments and rent assistance should they make it to Australia by boat.

You can guess what the angle is for that story...

The prosecutor in a subsequent court case said Richardson had “acted improperly, criminally and dishonestly

May be but my reading of the case suggests it did allow the prosecution make its case when the defence claimed the young people were lying about the teacher supplying them with P

Reporters, the real dirt-diggers, can be very unorthodox people. That unorthodoxy is sometimes how they get results.

I have to agree with this. I'm not a fan of Marshall's approach, and the embedded piece from the ABC showed a level of behaviour by Marshall that was frankly disgusting, but there is a level to which we can sometimes justify some level of dubious behaviour in the furtherance of a greater good.

Isn't it the role of a good editor to refuse to publish a story unless the details are factually correct and it's not presented in a misleading fashion? Why isn't someone exerting editorial control over these stories, and why aren't they being named as well? We're not talking about a blogger or someone self-publishing here. Marshall is working for a major news organisation. Given he has a known history of fabricating quotes (or at least being accused of fabricating quotes), why isn't someone rigorously fact-checking and ensuring that any quotes are genuine and can be proven if challenged?

I don't mean to imply that Marshall can abdicate responsibility for bad behaviour. I just wonder where the mechanism is to contain the damage?

May be but my reading of the case suggests it did allow the prosecution make its case when the defence claimed the young people were lying about the teacher supplying them with P

Did it? From the NZHerald article from 2004, the defence were claiming that nothing on the tape suggested Arthur supplied or smoked the drugs. All it did was confirm that drugs had been smoked at the party.

The article also made it sound like the students were put under a lot of pressure to say something that would satisfy the journalist or end up portrayed as crack-whores.

Whether what they said was true or not seems difficult to determine from the summary in the article.

The cynic in me would suggest the online version , after all these years, might have been adjusted to remove any stain on the reporters credibility.
Does the library copy of the printed version match ?

That would be an intriguing investigation ?

but there is a level to which we can sometimes justify some level of dubious behaviour in the furtherance of a greater good.

The Alan Jones story is a good example. There was outrage on the right that he'd signed a form declaring his interest in becoming a Young Liberal, but that was the price of entry. I think a story that showed what Australia's young political class was being treated to justified that sort of undercover action.

Not because of relevance to the discussion, but because I think some people who post here might care, (and because I choked on my coffee when I read it) can I point out that "onetime" drummer possibly indicates that Barker was part of the original Split Enz line up. He actually only drummed in their latest reunion tour in 2008 (although worked with Neil and Tim Finn separately). He was never part of the band during their active years (1972-1984): he was only 18 when they broke up.

Relevantly though - an eyebrow-raising piece indeed - looking forward to the show (especially the panel!)

Slightly OT, but still related to journalistic fuckery… Newbie journo Narelle Henson drives various wedges in the Waikato Times. And fails to disclose her interests. Which is tantamount to entryism. Frank Macskasy calls bullshit on TDB.

I have to agree with this. I'm not a fan of Marshall's approach, and the embedded piece from the ABC showed a level of behaviour by Marshall that was frankly disgusting, but there is a level to which we can sometimes justify some level of dubious behaviour in the furtherance of a greater good.

Which is all delightful in theory, but here's the RW problem with that. Whatever low life is editing the Daily Mail and The Sun nowadays will always look you in the eye and claim their latest arseholy fuckery is in the service of a greater good. Every every time. I know this is terribly old fashioned of me, but I'm a strong believer in the notion that when you start lowering the ethical bar (and editorial standards) in newsrooms you shouldn't be at all surprised when it just doesn't stop falling. Where does that end up? Well, ask the New York Times and New Republic if their credibility has recovered from the Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass scandals. Clear a couple of months and read ALL the evidence from the Leveson Inquiry.

can I point out that “onetime” drummer possibly indicates that Barker was part of the original Split Enz line up. He actually only drummed in their latest reunion tour in 2008 (although worked with Neil and Tim Finn separately). He was never part of the band during their active years (1972-1984): he was only 18 when they broke up.

Amazingly, the completely FUBARed Today Tonight story had a picture of him playing with Split Enz. Except it was actually longtime drummer Malcolm Green.

So yeah, the rockstar dad angle is the lamest part of the story, albeit the one that all the papers went with.

BTW, I couldn’t squeeze it into the show recording tonight, but Herald on Sunday editor Bryce Johns got back to us to confirm the Marshall byline on their story, which he said was part of “an informal copy-sharing arrangement” with News Ltd. He said their story was different than most of the Aussie ones because it was subjected to their ethical and fact-checking standards.

It wasn’t actually that different, imo.

Brian Edwards and Cameron Slater sparring was entertaining to behold at the filming.

Whether there are any absolute ethics or only relative ones that are somehow the privince of yoof like Marshall as argued by Herkt and Slater wasn't prperly grappled with. Must read the LawCom report. Be nice humans.

Except it was actually

hope you get a subtitle in there #notreallyhim

He may have shortcomings in the ethics department, but at least he has a great name...

hope you get a subtitle in there #notreallyhim

I talked to Jose about it tonight. We need to note it somehow.

an arrow with 'not really him' might do it :)

Regarding the merger of media watchdogs, why have the Advertising Standards Complaints Board not been included? They are an equally self-policing concern and in my experience complaints are hard to get actioned if the defending party is a powerful entity. Ad content should be controlled by a more powerful, independent non-aligned organisation as well.