Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

It's ridiculous. Hope the council are feeling sheepish - and let's hope there's editorial comment on this across the press.
The spinoff will spin it, surely!

Did Davis' broadcast include 'the particular examples' proving his statements on Radio Sport? Dis he provide 'a range of other material' to support his statements? This example shows the innate abstruseness Press Council process.

If it's the NewsHub column I'm think it is, MediaWorks seems to have removed the "boyfriend" bit.

Would it also be fair to say that while requiring The Spinoff to prove in its article a case it was able to prove outside it, the Press Council did not make the same demand of the complainant's complaint?

Did Davis’ broadcast include ‘the particular examples’ proving his statements on Radio Sport?

Broadcasting standards are a different beast? But it raises a bunch of questions. Eg what if the “evidence” was in the link – which has now disappeared? Using links for evidence becomes out of bounds?
Also: opinion has quite different standards, doesn’t it? And at the spinoff, mixing reporting and opinion – mostly in a delicious gumbo :) – is more or less the house style. This could leave them in an awkward space.

But...so what? Does it matter what the 'Press Council' rules. To a digital magazine-thing in 2016? Will people be arrested? Will their servers be seized? Isn't this finding completely redundant?

I thought being homophobic was a character defect, which could be cured by education and cognitive therapy. But apparently it's now a crime, subject to legal sanctions. When did that happen?

But apparently it's now a crime, subject to legal sanctions. When did that happen?

It wasn't a criminal investigation. The character alleged to have made homophobic statements was not the accused but the complainant.

Lack of comprehension is a defect which can be cured by education and training. It's not a crime either, but I recommend the treatment.

Doesn't this mean the turtles will have to go all the way down?

Lawyers entertainment.
Tort toys.

Doesn't this mean the turtles will have to go all the way down?

That was my thought. To quote Carl Sagan "if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". Presumably if you wish to publish an article you must first prove that the universe exists, and likewise with all subsequent claims of fact.

I look forward to all future newspapers having on the front page "In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded".

Is the Spinoff an independent blog or is there a media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding behind it?

I don't see why an online outlet should become a Press Council member, especially if they come out with rulings like this. ISTR some discussion when they first started accepting online membership => does this confer some sort of legal privilege? (tea and biscuits on budget day or whatever).

Is the Spinoff an independent blog or is there a media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding behind it?

It's not and a blog, and I don't believe there's another media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding it.

I don't see why an online outlet should become a Press Council member, especially if they come out with rulings like this.

Membership of the Press Council provides certain rights in court proceedings, that are not available to media outlets that aren't members of it or the BSA.

It's not a blog

Ok, it's a website containing articles on matters of current interest. (BTW, don't call this a comment. It's an eclectic and erudite pontification. With links.)

Ah gotcha: helpfully collated by the Law Commission.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that being a Real Journalist and agreeing to take wrist-slaps from the Press Council when delivered should entitle one to inside knowledge of Secret Things (like which AB has run off to join ISIS because the NZRB has got just too namby-pamby liberal. Ooops, maybe I shouldn't post that - the bloke who told me did mention some sort of embargo).