I stand corrected and humbly apologise to the Oracle of Apollo for the outrageous slur that I have cast upon her good character.

She knew you'd do that.

I've worked with The Age editorial staff in the past, and I'm well aware of their legal obligations. As far as Caro's opinion pieces go, the club cannot sue as it's a corporation. She has been careful on her naming of individuals, only going as far as to mention what certain people are accused of. She has been hard on the club as a whole. Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down. It may also have encouraged her to publish these pieces if she was able to demonstrate her knowledge on the issue.

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

If we have no case to answer to, or successfully challenge the charges in a court I thought she could be sued for defamation.

‘Defamation’ is the wrong of injuring another's reputation without good reason or justification.

And must satisfy 5 elements:

1. It is the communication or publication

2. to a third party

3. of a defamatory matter

4. of and concerning, or identifying, the plaintiff

5. without lawful excuse.

She satisfied all of this with "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009" amongst other quotes.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in the news dont most reporters assume innocence until proven guilty to avoid defamation such as 'Mr. X is being acused of murdering Mr. Y in 2009', rather than 'Mr X. murdered Mr. Y in 2009' incase they are found innocent?

So what I want to know is how is this any different? I know a defence to defamation is the truth, however if we have no case to answer to, or successfully challenge the charges in a court I thought this would satisfy all the elements.

No one has posted that the Age did publish Don M's statement today, so I now assume they did not.

I amazed at the apologists for CW. But I'm even more amazed that there has been so little reaction to the failure of the Age to publish Don M's refutation of her article. Whatever you think of her opinions/facts/tone, the smallest modicum of balance would require the Age to publish Don's statement. It seems only the ABC is required by charter to be balanced.

I dont know how Gary Lyon can work with her.

She hates his football club,continually publishing lies about them.

She hates his good mate James Brayshaw as well.

His ratings are more important to him.

are you flaming?

No I was trying to be ironic, only my second post into this topic, not interested in it, it is all, Caroline Wilson included, a lot of hot air about nothing, Don McLardy has answered for the Club, end of story

edit, missed a couple of words....distracted

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by Satyriconhome

I dont know how Gary Lyon can work with her.

She hates his football club,continually publishing lies about them.

She hates his good mate James Brayshaw as well.

that is exactly why she is there. Dynamics.

Outside fifty, on 14 Feb 2013 - 12:03, said:

This depresses me immensely. To think that people actually believe this is the role of Journalism. Woodward and Bernstein would be turning over in their graves, if they were dead. I would love to see The Rages HR departments Job description for the position of Journalist. " Must be able to get attention and provoke a reaction" To me that describes "EBOLA VIRUS".

Hey, I agree with you! I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it's the things are.

Agree about Woodward & Bernstein, but they weren't reporting sport, and they didn't have a 24-hour news cycle and the internet to contend with.

As far as CW's employer is concerned, they want her to get attention for them, above all the clamour of every other writer who's competing for the public's attention. The worst thing that could happen for the employer is that she gets ignored. And she's going to get attention - what she writes is going to be talked about & argued over, as witnessed by the however many indignant posts on d'land (plus ology, BF, Bomberblitz etc etc) - only if she writes something inflammatory & provocative.

That's not "right", not by any means, but it's the way things are.

And the way to get attention is - and has always been - to play on people's fears and anxieties, because people are emotional about their team. Above all, we fear that she has more influence over this issue than she actually does.

The AFL, by the way, would be very pleased with her, because she's provoking people to talk and argue AFL rather than cricket or ARL - or Superbowl or Justin Bieber or MKR or whatever else. But I doubt the AFL take the content of her article seriously, and it's pretty clear that Don M (and MFC and their legal team) don't either.

Don does not want to get dragged into a debate with the likes of Caro (Caro, on the other hand, would love that to happen because it would give her heaps of attention). But given that her latest article has provoked so much fear and anxiety amongst "members & supporters", he does want us to know that they have the matter in hand, and that what she's written about is irrelevant at best to the ultimate decision. He's done it really well.

I dont know how Gary Lyon can work with her.

She hates his football club,continually publishing lies about them.

She hates his good mate James Brayshaw as well.

I can't hang her for that...

You edited that? How many mistakes did you make?

Several...

I am disgusted that the HUN or Age have not published Mclardy's response from yesterday.

Just proves that Wilson's article yesterday was designed to start the fire. There was nothing new except more bile.

Since when should a journalist create news? I was bought up to believe a journalist reported the news of others, not create it.

Orwell was absolutely right.

I am disgusted that the HUN or Age have not published Mclardy's response from yesterday.

Just proves that Wilson's article yesterday was designed to start the fire. There was nothing new except more bile.

Since when should a journalist create news? I was bought up to believe a journalist reported the news of others, not create it.

Orwell was absolutely right.

The Sun wouldn't want to publish it as it would direct people to reading CW's article, and The Age won't publish it because it shows up their declining standards.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by stuie

The Sun wouldn't want to publish it as it would direct people to reading CW's article, and The Age won't publish it because it shows up their declining standards.

that logic has never stopped news gatherers before.

News is news and in the context of the Tanking saga it is new information.

Pathetic Editorial Standard...(i did an 8 year stint in a newsroom & i seriously cannot believe what is allowed to pass as reporting now).

that logic has never stopped news gatherers before.

News is news and in the context of the Tanking saga it is new information.

Pathetic Editorial Standard...(i did an 8 year stint in a newsroom & i seriously cannot believe what is allowed to pass as reporting now).

Couldn't agree more on the standards we're seeing today, seems to be accelerating too.

I understand you're point, but I just don't think it rates as highly as news as what we think. We're wrapped Don has made a public stand, but in the context of The Herald Sun they would just see it as a minor back and forth with a rival journo.

Couldn't agree more on the standards we're seeing today, seems to be accelerating too.

I understand you're point, but I just don't think it rates as highly as news as what we think. We're wrapped Don has made a public stand, but in the context of The Herald Sun they would just see it as a minor back and forth with a rival journo.

well THEY are wrong.

Wilson is creating news not reporting it.

well THEY are wrong.

Wilson is creating news not reporting it.

I agree mate. It's just part of that harsh reality about how we're treated. It seems simplistic, but the best thing we can do is start winning games, it fixes pretty much everything.

I agree mate. It's just part of that harsh reality about how we're treated. It seems simplistic, but the best thing we can do is start winning games, it fixes pretty much everything.

yes, but more to the point it is sad that Wilson & others of her ilk are able to pull a salary from writing a bunch of unsubstanciated lies.

I do hope FanBob enjoyed his fix of facts yesterday. He does like to be informed.

yes, but more to the point it is sad that Wilson & others of her ilk are able to pull a salary from writing a bunch of unsubstanciated lies.

I do hope FanBob enjoyed his fix of facts yesterday. He does like to be informed.

The saddest part is that at some stage she would have had hopes of being a groundbreaking journo with unquestionable integrity and sources. She would have worked hard to try and be that, may have even been close at some stage in the past, but she's either turned her back on her dreams for the sake of the dollar or she's just been worn down by the true nature of her industry. Not that I feel sorry for her though.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by stuie

yes, but more to the point it is sad that Wilson & others of her ilk are able to pull a salary from writing a bunch of unsubstanciated lies.

I do hope FanBob enjoyed his fix of facts yesterday. He does like to be informed.

She pulls the salary because of masochists like me. I find most things she has written over the past two years, negative in the extreme and cleverly ( and in many cases not so cleverly) parading opinion and imagination as fact. It makes my blood boil yet I must religiously read her next article to see what it is this time that will send my blood pressure through the roof. ( she is the car accidents of journalism - I know I shouldnt but I always slow down to have a look)

edit - and those who think Caro has a vendetta against CS , I think James Brayshaw must have kicked her dog to death.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by nutbean

I've worked with The Age editorial staff in the past, and I'm well aware of their legal obligations. As far as Caro's opinion pieces go, the club cannot sue as it's a corporation. She has been careful on her naming of individuals, only going as far as to mention what certain people are accused of. She has been hard on the club as a whole. Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down. It may also have encouraged her to publish these pieces if she was able to demonstrate her knowledge on the issue.

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

How recently are you talking?

Because times, they are a'changing.

The saddest part is that at some stage she would have had hopes of being a groundbreaking journo with unquestionable integrity and sources. She would have worked hard to try and be that, may have even been close at some stage in the past, but she's either turned her back on her dreams for the sake of the dollar or she's just been worn down by the true nature of her industry. Not that I feel sorry for her though.

Quite a few politicians start off like that, but they usually finish up as scumbags.

Quite a few politicians start off like that, but they usually finish up as scumbags.

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.."

Sometimes I wonder how Caro has a job..

Sometimes I wonder how Caro has a job..

for the same reason that New idea still sells its little head off

for the same reason that New idea still sells its little head off

And the same reason Ben Hur isn't on my ignore list...

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by billy2803

The saddest part is that at some stage she would have had hopes of being a groundbreaking journo with unquestionable integrity and sources. She would have worked hard to try and be that, may have even been close at some stage in the past, but she's either turned her back on her dreams for the sake of the dollar or she's just been worn down by the true nature of her industry. Not that I feel sorry for her though.

yep for the $$$ & worn down by the system.

Why was yesterdays piece published??

One can only hope the Fink read it also, as he to was mentioned.