1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Each story Print, Radio or TV is either cleared to Broadcast or it is withheld, when it is sent to Legal 

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Probably, but did he want a response? Or just want to be able to say he tried to get one...?

He could go to press without an attempt...

If there was more time, I think the pre-emptive legal route may have been pursued

Maybe the old 'Thank God this call went through to voicemail' trick?

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

So is it fair to say if there was one bit of doubt in the facts presented it would probably still be with legal?

Absolutely Correct when I worked in News. I had a few stories pulled after spending a lot of hours working on them. Sometimes because circumstances changed, but other times because the risk was too high

4 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

The people who gave the “facts” would know the consequences of lying. That would have been made very clear. 
This article was not one case, but 3 

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

I don’t think the story would be printed if the journalist thought that any of the 3 cases were lying. This is the same journalist that broke the story about Rod Owen. 
What the Legal Department do to verify a story I cannot say. In my case we were just given a Yes or No

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice.

the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further.

the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

Exactly 

The report is of allegations made by third parties, which the reporter can establish were made

So the "facts" are those people made those allegations

Much of the opinion on here is based on the substance of the allegations - which have now been categorically denied by the accused parties

The legal avenue I think more time for responses may have resulted in was injunction to prevent the story going to press, not the reporter being sued

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t think the story would be printed if the journalist thought that any of the 3 cases were lying. This is the same journalist that broke the story about Rod Owen. 
What the Legal Department do to verify a story I cannot say. In my case we were just given a Yes or No

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop.

now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

 

Just now, daisycutter said:

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop.

now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

 

His reputation is on the line by writing the story. So far his reputation is Top Shelf.

If Russell Jackson “thought” his subjects were lying i don’t think the story would have been written. 
When i saw who wrote the article yesterday, I immediately read it with more interest. 
Balls have been put on the line here…

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

His reputation is on the line by writing the story. So far his reputation is Top Shelf.

If Russell Jackson “thought” his subjects were lying i don’t think the story would have been written. 
When i saw who wrote the article yesterday, I immediately read it with more interest. 
Balls have been put on the line here…

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

 

Just now, daisycutter said:

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

 

DC the Journalist put his name to the story. That means a lot. 
Many stories on the internet do not have a Journalists name. This one did. 
It is very relevant in this case whether the journalist believes he is writing facts or fiction. His job is on the line

1 hour ago, old dee said:

What we now have is the two coaches having to prove themselves innocent. ⁴ Makes me wonder why we bother with courts. Much quicker and cheaper to just accept the accusers view and be done with it.

Ok no worries, what kind of media censorship sounds good to you then?

 

Do you want journalists to self censor in favour of the accused and the powerful?

Or

Would you like there to be a governing body determining what can be published?

 

Which absolute nightmare scenario sounds better to you than the current one?

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Hear say.

Actually it is a part of the report the AFL have.

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Actually it is a part of the report the AFL have.

You said " from what I have heard" that is hear say .  You haven't seen it. 

 

40 minutes ago, old dee said:

You said " from what I have heard" that is hear say .  You haven't seen it. 

 

Literally

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word. 
 

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

DC the Journalist put his name to the story. That means a lot. 
Many stories on the internet do not have a Journalists name. This one did. 
It is very relevant in this case whether the journalist believes he is writing facts or fiction. His job is on the line

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

5 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Were any "facts" presented? I'm not sure

There were quotes presented, from unnamed sources, who alleged events happened, without much context

Don't for a minute think that I doubt the allegations, I simply don't know anything. Just calling out the word "facts"

No but you're right, they didn't provide the full report in PDF form or anything like that so shouldn't have said 'facts'. The one fact is that there are allegations I guess

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

Stories like these are always a risk, but the Legal Department has gone through it with a fine tooth comb. 
So i will be interested to hear the other side. 
It’s on

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context.

he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish.

no need to read anymore than that into it. 

Just curious, the journalists that brought up the Jimmy Saville case also just ‘dug up some allegations’ and went ‘with it’.

They had even less to go on considering Saville was dead, so in terms of ‘facts’, it’s easily arguable that Saville was the victim of a smear campaign, yes? Considering his side of the story never had the chance to be heard?

Just want to hear your reasoning considering the ‘facts’ are in question (in which they definitely were in the Saville case too). 

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by BoBo

9 hours ago, sue said:

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word. 
 

@Demonstonewould be very proud of this post🙂

But OldDee is two words with lower case o and d😉

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

10 hours ago, old dee said:

You said " from what I have heard" that is hear say .  You haven't seen it. 

 

It has been confirmed by the AFL if you look it up. See, you don't have to see to see at the bottom of the deep blue sea, old dee.

10 hours ago, sue said:

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word. 
 

Do you have anyone to corroborate this?

I've followed the discussion about the the fairness of the publication of the allegations etc and overnight I came to the following conclusions which satisfy me, if no one else.

1. It was perfectly reasonable for the Hawthorn review to only question those making allegations.  That review was not charged with establishing the truth of the allegations by interviewing the alleged offenders.  That should be done by a seperate investigation by the club or the AFL.  A bit like the Crown prosecution service may decide there is a case to answer which then goes to trial where everyone gets to present their case.

2. So the next question then is, should  the review (or its effective contents) have been made public.  Surely it could not be kept secret until the 'trial' of the matter was concluded.  We don't do that for criminal trials. Keeping such things secret undermines public confidence that justice is being done. It's what you expect to happen in totalitarian countries.

3. So the next question is, could have it been made public without naming names?  That is, the AFL announces an enquiry into these allegations without naming the senior coach, other coaches or club.  But that wouldn't wash.  First for those who are concerned about Malthouse etc being besmirched, if it wasn't clear who was being accused, every coach at every club would be under an unfair cloud.  Anyway, it would soon become clear which club it was, so they just as well have been named at the start.

4. To me that leaves only the question of should the coaches have been given more time to respond.  I really can't see what would be achieved by that. Very unlikley that they would 'confess' or say there is some truth in some of the less obnoxious allegations and offer to assist any investigation.  Very much more likely, they'd either dodge responding to a journo or just deny the allegations and offer to support any investigation the AFL makes.  And that is what they did.  Whether they had 24 hours or a week, I can't see them doing anything else.