Whatever weight you give your second sentence (seems irrelevant to me) I am amazed that you can't see that any newspaper of quality should not have been expected to publish or have a news item about Don's response. Staggered.

Ninety per cent of what you read in the paper is denied by the protagonists. In a news article, those denials usually come at the end of the story, the last two paragraphs.

Caro's article was an opinion piece, not a news story - there's no obligation to acknowledge the other side in an opinion piece.

Imagine an economics commentator having a crack at Wayne Swan. The following day, Swan puts out a press release answering point by point the criticisms levelled at him. Could you ever imagine a second opinion piece that covers Swan's responses?

Ninety per cent of what you read in the paper is denied by the protagonists. In a news article, those denials usually come at the end of the story, the last two paragraphs.

Caro's article was an opinion piece, not a news story - there's no obligation to acknowledge the other side in an opinion piece.

Imagine an economics commentator having a crack at Wayne Swan. The following day, Swan puts out a press release answering point by point the criticisms levelled at him. Could you ever imagine a second opinion piece that covers Swan's responses?

Yes, I didn't expect to see Don's stuff in CW's article as you suggest. If someone writes an opinion piece laced with facts that are disputed in a statement later in the day, you publish the counter statement the next day I am bewildered why anyone, let alone a Demon's supporter would take the line you have.

its on tonight

and if Gary doesnt stick up for us tonight then it will be the last time i watch it

plus its seemed very dull with pretty boy LLoyd there , shame about Thomas as i think he would have got stuck into her too about this

Thomas was the only thing good about the show.

Do you seriously think the club hasn't made those points to the AFL ? I'd be disappointed if they haven't.

Virtually all of the discussion on this forum has centred around those "defences" .. do you really think the league and the club are instead discussing where Jamar played, or why Watts didn't appear more often?

You think they're sitting around watching replay after replay of the final 3 minutes of the Richmond game?

Don't bother mate. Groupthink with a heap of bias is alive and well on Demonland.

Yes, I didn't expect to see Don's stuff in CW's article as you suggest. If someone writes an opinion piece laced with facts that are disputed in a statement later in the day, you publish the counter statement the next day I am bewildered why anyone, let alone a Demon's supporter would take the line you have.

You're absolutely right. When accusations or predictions are made about an individual or an organisation, based on or including purported factual content, it is the normal course in a newspaper with any integrity to publish the rebuttal by the accused party. When DM said CW was 'entitled to her opinion' he was in fact disputing what she implied to be facts; he was not recognising simply that this was a mere opinion piece. He put forward factual statements - setting the record straight - to refute her words, and these should have been published. All this goes to the heart of the issue re CW: she confabulates; fact and fiction are blended in her vicious mind.

If someone writes an opinion piece laced with facts that are disputed in a statement later in the day, you publish the counter statement the next day

Most opinion pieces are disputed by someone - that's why they're published, they generate debate.

It's a dull paper that only publishes opinion pieces on which everyone agrees. Perhaps you've been reading Pravda all your life.

Ninety per cent of what you read in the paper is denied by the protagonists. In a news article, those denials usually come at the end of the story, the last two paragraphs.

Caro's article was an opinion piece, not a news story - there's no obligation to acknowledge the other side in an opinion piece.

Imagine an economics commentator having a crack at Wayne Swan. The following day, Swan puts out a press release answering point by point the criticisms levelled at him. Could you ever imagine a second opinion piece that covers Swan's responses?

Agreed. As I mentioned yesterday the Age protects its own from criticism and it was never going to publish a view contrary to Wilson's in the form of Don McLardy's message.

Besides, DM was far too logical for the lunatics that abound in the asylum that's become the Age.

* apologies to Martin Flanagan, Tim Lane, Emma Quayle and Tim Boyle.

Most opinion pieces are disputed by someone - that's why they're published, they generate debate.

It's a dull paper that only publishes opinion pieces on which everyone agrees. Perhaps you've been reading Pravda all your life.

Sounds like you are the Pravda reader - they didn't publish the counter view the next day. You think it is OKt hat the Age didn't. Your capacity for missing the point is remarkable.

Most opinion pieces are disputed by someone - that's why they're published, they generate debate.

It's a dull paper that only publishes opinion pieces on which everyone agrees. Perhaps you've been reading Pravda all your life.

Would help if they were factually correct, wouldn't it?

Or don't you think that's necessary?

Don't bother mate. Groupthink with a heap of bias is alive and well on Demonland.

I've an idea. Someone should write some completely loopy comment (loopier than usual) and then all us groupthinkers should criticise it. In no time BH will come to the rescue of the original poster.

BH old chum, yes, groupthink can be dangerous, but sometimes the majority is correct. Sometimes the contrarian is wrong. Are you seriously defending the view that it is more than OK for the Age to have ignored Don's response?

Sounds like you are the Pravda reader - they didn't publish the counter view the next day. You think it is OKt hat the Age didn't. Your capacity for missing the point is remarkable.

Does the 'Hun give a page to a leftie to respond to Bolt?

Does the Age have a conservative economic commentator to counter Davidson, Colebatch and co?

I've an idea. Someone should write some completely loopy comment (loopier than usual) and then all us groupthinkers should criticise it. In no time BH will come to the rescue of the original poster.

BH old chum, yes, groupthink can be dangerous, but sometimes the majority is correct. Sometimes the contrarian is wrong. Are you seriously defending the view that it is more than OK for the Age to have ignored Don's response?

I'm not interested, Sue.

I only care about the AFL judgment. The AFL judgment means so much more than a newspaper response.

I get you don't get it.

I only care about the AFL judgment. The AFL judgment means so much more than a newspaper response.

BH it would be nice if we could know what the AFLs response would be before bloody Christmas.

Geez this is giving me the [censored].

Don't bother mate. Groupthink with a heap of bias is alive and well on Demonland.

That's why we have The Great Contrarian!!

Whenever you need someone to be against or for something purely based on whether others are for or against said something - there The Great Contrarian will be!!

G Lyon going in Hard.

That had been building up for a while for him I think.

A precis ? Wife not into fc lol

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by belzebub59

go gl , i thought he was very angry with her , mean it , roll eyes etc , i hope hed , really go the thing , but i thoiught he was ok , well restrained , go dee,s, they say on ology db cleared , great news

Agreed. As I mentioned yesterday the Age protects its own from criticism and it was never going to publish a view contrary to Wilson's in the form of Don McLardy's message.

Besides, DM was far too logical for the lunatics that abound in the asylum that's become the Age.

* apologies to Martin Flanagan, Tim Lane, Emma Quayle and Tim Boyle.

You're agreeing with something which is almost the opposite of what you say in the second sentence.

The original argument of Grapeviney's was that there is no, and there has never been any, obligation to publish a reply to an opinion piece, but you're implying that obligations mean nothing to The Age anyway.

The real question was, SHOULD The Age have published DM's rebuttal? It's a question of whether CW's article contained factual content, and whether The Age is a 'newspaper of record'.

I agree with what you say about the paper, but I don't think you should be agreeing with Grapeviney.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by Lost Highway

A precis ? Wife not into fc lol

See tanking thread.

That was great seeing Gary have a go at caro like that. She had nothing sensible to say back and all she could go was questions Gary's integrity. She says the findings will be tomorrow, lets see if the witch is right.

Well done Gaz!

That was great seeing Gary have a go at caro like that. She had nothing sensible to say back and all she could go was questions Gary's integrity. She says the findings will be tomorrow, lets see if the witch is right.

Well done Gaz!

She's questioning GLs integrity. Those in glass house cw.

ummm... It says the two aren't mutually exclusive ... I don't get your point.

My point was that the post doesn't say that. Those words aren't used and whatever you might want to add as an afterthought they're not even implied.

His ratings are more important to him.

Garry lyon just looks weak pathetic and self serving in all of this She and he can no longer be taken seriously in anything after this. Grow some Kuhunas Garry and tell her to put up or shut up How anybody watches this rubbish I dont know and I thought the Footy show was low brow Geeeesus!>

I'm not interested, Sue.

I only care about the AFL judgment. The AFL judgment means so much more than a newspaper response.

I get you don't get it.

I don't 'get it' because despite you saying you don't care, you posted on this issue.

I presume that you are personally in favour of newspapers giving both sides of a story, but you don't want to appear to be backing away from your support of grapeviney for being against the 'groupthink' when he said the opposite.

This is not the first time you got asked a question which undermines your position so you take the "I'm not interested" line. Better not to reply at all.