Thursday, June 28, 2007

Widow Given Shit Deal !

The 'little paper' lives up to it's reputation, by publishing this report on page 11 , June 28th, 07 .

By way of a 'not really' apology.... it is all in the 3rd person. Considering that the paper had run reports of a surburban lawyers' death on, the front page, with suggestions of underworld connections.

You will need to click on the 'cut out' to make it readable.

The Australian Press Council, yesterday, made a ruling against, "The Paper of the Year 2005-6."

See adjudication 1361 and you would have to say that self regulation of the media is not working.


The Daily Magnet said...

I don't think it could be assumed that just because police tell you there is no connection, that it is 100^% accurate and that there is no reason to investigate further.

They have no code of accuracy, the impact of which, we've seen so much in the West over the last decade.

I find the article frustrating because it doesn't examine the paper's reasons for considering that there was a link in the first place.

That said, prejudicial inaccuracies are sadly a daily occurrence in the msm.

joe2 said...

Good point tdm. It would be a failure of a journalist to just accept a claim of police on face value.

Though, having made claims on their front page, twice, that have been found to be completly false, by the press watchdog, what you read in the article, is a very poor excuse for an apology.

Given that the widow who brought the claim had only this form of redress to clear her husbands name. She could not sue, as you cannot defame the dead.

It would be sad to think, that in seeking newspaper sales, a journalist would take that in account at the expense of the widow and family.

Arthur_Vandelay said...

You've been tagged. Sorry.

joe2 said...

Apology accepted,arthur.