Kinja reply list

It’s a combination of a) more than that and b) Australian media practices (and media law) and our legal precedents viewing defamation differently to the US, with both positive and negative impacts.

The ‘more than that’ is the fact the writer used the headline kickers ‘King Leer’ and then something about Rush being ‘Bard,’ meaning, regardless of the article’s content, there’s an implication the writer has decided Rush is guilty, or at the very least is smearing his reputation.

In Australia, the presumption of innocence is considered the responsibility of media organisations to uphold. I work in the media here (Australia) so while I don’t know whether LAWS are different to make this the case (compared to the US) I do know there are at least laws closely related that are much tougher in Australia, which could have contributed to the fact we’re less likely to publish ‘allegations.’

I do know that hundreds of allegations have been sent to Aus media outlets in the wake of the Weinstein report, but only two-or-three have been published. A large amount of the allegations that have been published in the US (certainly Andy Dick and Jeffrey Tambor’s) would not have been published here, or would have been published with the publication being under the assumption they’d be sued for defamation.

I also know My legal pre-publication contacts would have BEGGED me not to use any headline kicker (King LEER) that could be viewed by the public as me having formed the opinion that Rush was likely guilty. They would also advise me not to publish without a response from Rush or a representative.

Several times, i’ve sent claims to pre-pubs, made entirely by someone else, and their response is always this: 1. Wait for a response from the accused, or try so hard to get one that I’d be able to demonstrate my attempts in court. 2. (And here’s where the differences become clearer with AU vs US) Make sure I believe the person making the allegations, that I have seen the evidence they are putting forward, and that I get confirmation that they’d be prepared to support me and my publication in court should they need to. 3. Do not, under any circumstances, use any descriptors that could be construed as me stating opinion as fact, do not draw conclusions, do not make any assumptions.

They would also remind me that me publishing claims or allegations can be construed as me supporting the claims, and therefore even If i followed all of the above steps, I could still be in trouble.

Additionally, we have different court reporting laws. Several times in recent memory, journalists reporting from court have been charged with contempt of court and caused cases to result in mistrials, simply by breaking any one of the recommendations I outlined above. If a jury is not sequestered, and they read any report about the case that could be seen as having the potential to sway that jury members opinion, that writer could be in contempt of court.

For example, the Cosby Case, correct me if I’m wrong, but the jury was not sequestered, and would therefore have been able to read the myriad op-ed pieces released regarding the trial. Many journalists, including some from this site, used their reports (whether first or second hand) as a chance to showcase their wit. They decided Cosby was guilty (I’m making it very clear here that I DO NOT blame them for that) and reported as if it were fact.

Now while it may seem like that could only be good, it’s just as likely a jury member reading that could actually be turned off by the brutal report’s insistence of guilt (they may house strong feelings about Cosby’s comedy and his former beloved status) and conclude that a smear campaign was being conducted against Cosby, and develop ‘reasonable doubt’ regarding his guilt.

The Cosby trial, of course, resulted in a mistrial. But with the weight of allegations made against him, even in Australia reporters would likely win any defamation cases brought against them. BUT should Cosby’s LAWYER have sued for defamation, insisting his good name was smeared (the good name part may be disputable, but alas), based on what I saw, I think he would have won in Australian courts. He could have argued he was simply doing his job, to represent his client fairly, but (had the case resulted in a guilty verdict) had been painted by the media as ‘the bastard who thought Cosby was innocent and wanted the world to know about it.’ It’s not hard to imagine the lawyer would have suffered irreparable damage to his career should his client have been found guilty (who the hell would want to use the Cosby lawyer).

Presumably after he looked up “spurious”.

Read More
skip biffertyThe Kinja Caffeine Spider
12/08/17 11:55am
I doubt he did, seeing as the word ‘spurious’ was not used in this story, not used in the story this was linked from, and as far as I could hear (the audio is fairly weak) not once spoken in this YouTube clip. I’m not sure who’s being quoted in this headline; possibly a co-worker when the author of this piece asked aloud, “Hey, what’s that word that means something might sound kinda true, but is actually false?” “Spurious?” “Can I quote you on that?”
Read More
The Kinja Caffeine Spiderskip bifferty
12/08/17 12:02pm
Look at you & your research.

If the paper did nothing more than report that a complaint had been filed with the theater company, isn’t that just a verifiable statement of fact? Not sure how they’re at risk here, even if Rush didn’t do anything. If he did, then I don’t want to play poker with this man.

Read More
Matthewbfred
12/08/17 6:49pm
It’s much more than that;
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4775254.htm
Read More
2786alexbfred
12/09/17 2:11am
It’s a combination of a) more than that and b) Australian media practices (and media law) and our legal precedents viewing defamation differently to the US, with both positive and negative impacts.

The ‘more than that’ is the fact the writer used the headline kickers ‘King Leer’ and then something about Rush being ‘Bard,’ meaning, regardless of the article’s content, there’s an implication the writer has decided Rush is guilty, or at the very least is smearing his reputation.

In Australia, the presumption of innocence is considered the responsibility of media organisations to uphold. I work in the media here (Australia) so while I don’t know whether LAWS are different to make this the case (compared to the US) I do know there are at least laws closely related that are much tougher in Australia, which could have contributed to the fact we’re less likely to publish ‘allegations.’

I do know that hundreds of allegations have been sent to Aus media outlets in the wake of the Weinstein report, but only two-or-three have been published. A large amount of the allegations that have been published in the US (certainly Andy Dick and Jeffrey Tambor’s) would not have been published here, or would have been published with the publication being under the assumption they’d be sued for defamation.

I also know My legal pre-publication contacts would have BEGGED me not to use any headline kicker (King LEER) that could be viewed by the public as me having formed the opinion that Rush was likely guilty. They would also advise me not to publish without a response from Rush or a representative.

Several times, i’ve sent claims to pre-pubs, made entirely by someone else, and their response is always this: 1. Wait for a response from the accused, or try so hard to get one that I’d be able to demonstrate my attempts in court. 2. (And here’s where the differences become clearer with AU vs US) Make sure I believe the person making the allegations, that I have seen the evidence they are putting forward, and that I get confirmation that they’d be prepared to support me and my publication in court should they need to. 3. Do not, under any circumstances, use any descriptors that could be construed as me stating opinion as fact, do not draw conclusions, do not make any assumptions.

They would also remind me that me publishing claims or allegations can be construed as me supporting the claims, and therefore even If i followed all of the above steps, I could still be in trouble.

Additionally, we have different court reporting laws. Several times in recent memory, journalists reporting from court have been charged with contempt of court and caused cases to result in mistrials, simply by breaking any one of the recommendations I outlined above. If a jury is not sequestered, and they read any report about the case that could be seen as having the potential to sway that jury members opinion, that writer could be in contempt of court.

For example, the Cosby Case, correct me if I’m wrong, but the jury was not sequestered, and would therefore have been able to read the myriad op-ed pieces released regarding the trial. Many journalists, including some from this site, used their reports (whether first or second hand) as a chance to showcase their wit. They decided Cosby was guilty (I’m making it very clear here that I DO NOT blame them for that) and reported as if it were fact.

Now while it may seem like that could only be good, it’s just as likely a jury member reading that could actually be turned off by the brutal report’s insistence of guilt (they may house strong feelings about Cosby’s comedy and his former beloved status) and conclude that a smear campaign was being conducted against Cosby, and develop ‘reasonable doubt’ regarding his guilt.

The Cosby trial, of course, resulted in a mistrial. But with the weight of allegations made against him, even in Australia reporters would likely win any defamation cases brought against them. BUT should Cosby’s LAWYER have sued for defamation, insisting his good name was smeared (the good name part may be disputable, but alas), based on what I saw, I think he would have won in Australian courts. He could have argued he was simply doing his job, to represent his client fairly, but (had the case resulted in a guilty verdict) had been painted by the media as ‘the bastard who thought Cosby was innocent and wanted the world to know about it.’ It’s not hard to imagine the lawyer would have suffered irreparable damage to his career should his client have been found guilty (who the hell would want to use the Cosby lawyer).

So the AV Club thinks it was an assault? Because it’s not really clear what was claimed here.

Lol he mad