12 minutes ago, BoBo said:

The journalist rejects this in part and maintains he contacted Fagan directly. 
 

Can only assume he did the same with the rest of them. 

Fair enough.

But 24 hours notice in an email sent to his office which he may not check regularly during the off season.  I wonder if the phone message was to his office phone or mobile or how much more time was offered. 

For me the opportunity provided to respond to such serious allegations was very limited.

To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about.

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

Just now, Lucifers Hero said:

Fair enough.

But 24 hours notice in an email sent to his office which he may not check regularly during the off season.  I wonder if the phone message was to his office phone or mobile or how much more time was offered. 

For me the opportunity provided to respond to such serious allegations was very limited.

That's standard practice in all media circles LH. In fact, the phone call to offer more time is on the generous side.

This is done to prevent others breaking the story and trying to diffuse or change the narrative to suit themselves.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

That's standard practice in all media circles LH. In fact, the phone call to offer more time is on the generous side.

This is done to prevent others breaking the story and trying to diffuse or change the narrative to suit themselves.

That surprises me.  I kinda expect that from a Tabloid and other 'ambulance chasers' but the ABC...

So, the accused is done for either way: 1) no response to email/phone and it sounds like they are dodging the subject but 2) given little time to adequately respond and have their reputation trashed and career potentially ruined. 

The best anyone can do in those circumstances is to deny everything and that creates another click bait headline making the accused look worse.

The last thing we needed but was inevitable was for Eddie McGuire to stick his nose into this.

2 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That surprises me.  I kinda expect that from a Tabloid and other 'ambulance chasers' but the ABC...

So, the accused is done for either way: 1) no response to email/phone and it sounds like they are dodging the subject but 2) given little time to adequately respond and have their reputation trashed and career potentially ruined. 

The best anyone can do in those circumstances is to deny everything and that creates another click bait headline making the accused look worse.

Sure, it may seem short to us but that's how the press cycle works. After all the research, fact checking and legal that goes into a story like this it's really more of a courtesy/tradition for them to contact those involved and ask for comment. As far as I know it's not a legal requirement to do so.

9 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That surprises me.  I kinda expect that from a Tabloid and other 'ambulance chasers' but the ABC...

So, the accused is done for either way: 1) no response to email/phone and it sounds like they are dodging the subject but 2) given little time to adequately respond and have their reputation trashed and career potentially ruined. 

The best anyone can do in those circumstances is to deny everything and that creates another click bait headline making the accused look worse.

The Jouralist believes the story he has written.
Within The ABC there are Legal Departments who would have checked every word, before clearance. 
Wilson was purely guessing when she spoke about email addresses. 
This Story would not have gone out until it was fully cleared. 
 

I have been in the same situation with TV Stories that had to be cleared. 
Both Clarkson and Fagan had ample time to respond in their own way. So far they have declined 

49 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The Jouralist believes the story he has written.
Within The ABC there are Legal Departments who would have checked every word, before clearance. 
Wilson was purely guessing when she spoke about email addresses. 
This Story would not have gone out until it was fully cleared. 
 

I have been in the same situation with TV Stories that had to be cleared. 
Both Clarkson and Fagan had ample time to respond in their own way. So far they have declined 

so how come the abc get it wrong occasionally and get successfully sued?

you shouldn't over generalise. each case is specific

 

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Fair enough.

But 24 hours notice in an email sent to his office which he may not check regularly during the off season.  I wonder if the phone message was to his office phone or mobile or how much more time was offered. 

For me the opportunity provided to respond to such serious allegations was very limited.

To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about.

If Chris Fagan wasn’t a highly media trained AFL coach that has access to every single news station/news paper/journalist in the country that has a dedicated team of communications staff at his club, I could entertain this as being a valid concern. But he is Chris Fagan and he does have endless access to journalists. He could pick up the phone at anytime, to any journalist and give as much detail as he wants if he chose. So if he did just miss the communications from the journalist, it’s not like he can’t make a call and be heard….
 

He was given 24 hours to respond and he didn’t. He could have asked for more time, but he didn’t.  If *somehow* he didn’t check his email or phone messages or missed calls, as an AFL coach, then that’s on him, not the journalist. 
 

‘To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about’

If Fagan is the person in this scenario, why are you saying that he either knows ‘little if anything’ about it?

 

6 minutes ago, BoBo said:

If Chris Fagan wasn’t a highly media trained AFL coach that has access to every single news station/news paper/journalist in the country that has a dedicated team of communications staff at his club, I could entertain this as being a valid concern. But he is Chris Fagan and he does have endless access to journalists. He could pick up the phone at anytime, to any journalist and give as much detail as he wants if he chose. So if he did just miss the communications from the journalist, it’s not like he can’t make a call and be heard….
 

He was given 24 hours to respond and he didn’t. He could have asked for more time, but he didn’t.  If *somehow* he didn’t check his email or phone messages or missed calls, as an AFL coach, then that’s on him, not the journalist. 
 

‘To me it looks the equivalent of a journalist thrusting a microphone in someone's face demanding explanations on something they know little if anything about’

If Fagan is the person in this scenario, why are you saying that he either knows ‘little if anything’ about it?

 

more likely he was advised by a lawyer to say nothing on short notice to a journalist

he certainly wasn't obligated

 

The season just finished, exit interviews are happening. It's not like it's over the Christmas period when offices are closed. 

As for Clarko he's notorious for not answering calls from journos. I remember Mike Sheehan running with the story around 2013 that he was West Coast bound and he cracked it and said On The Couch that Mike should have called him and Mike said he did but he didn't answer blah blah. I don't buy it.

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

more likely he was advised by a lawyer to say nothing on short notice to a journalist

he certainly wasn't obligated

 

Yup I agree. This is by far the most likely scenario. 

4 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

From what I have heard, there is at least one assistant coach who can back up some of the claims .

Hear say.

24 hours seems like a very short timeframe to expect a response. Why the big hurry? But you would also think there are lines of communication if journalists want to contact AFL clubs with stories of such concern to their head coaches. I'm sure Clarkson and Fagan were contactable but also think you need to give longer than 24 hours

All by the by now, the story is out there. I'm looking forward to hearing all the details

 

4 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

From what I have heard, there is at least one assistant coach who can back up some of the claims .

I dreamt that I read something like that but wasn't sure because I read somewhere that you can't read in dreams but maybe I dreamt that I read that fact..

2 minutes ago, BDA said:

24 hours seems like a very short timeframe to expect a response. Why the big hurry? But you would also think there are lines of communication if journalists want to contact AFL clubs with stories of such concern to their head coaches. I'm sure Clarkson and Fagan were contactable but also think you need to give longer than 24 hours

All by the by now, the story is out there. I'm looking forward to hearing all the details

 

Do you  think that if they had more than 24 hours they'd say anything beyond the complete denial they have made anyway?

4 hours ago, BoBo said:

Ok, this is totally different from CYB saying the accused will be able to sue for slander as that specifically implies that the families are lying but…

This idea that the accused aren’t getting natural justice isn’t accurate. The Hawks report was just that, a report. It was to gather the experiences of indigenous players and that was the scope of the report. Which they did. In it, was extremely serious allegations. The report is confidential and hasn’t been publicly released yet.
 

There is now going to be an investigation by the AFL in which the accused will be told of the allegations, be able to give their side of the story and have their time in front of a tribunal to hear our the plurality of evidence from all sides. 
 

This is the definition of natural justice.
 

The only ‘contentious’ part in all of this that could be argued, is that the ABC journalist ran a story about this in which he interviewed participants in the report and released the story. This story is what everyone is referring too and nobody would know about this if this story hadn’t broken. 
 

So given that.
 

If you were to argue that the ABC journalist should not have run the story, which is the mechanism in this that brought all this to light, you have to realise you are arguing for either:

 

Self censorship by the journalist in the face of 3 families all making extremely serious and detailed allegations about one of the biggest clubs, in one of the biggest sports, in the country. The allegations are DEFINITELY in the public interest.They deserve to be heard. The journalist would be remiss in not publishing the story if the allegations being made, meet the journalistic standards of credibility. And if they are found to not meet those standards, then, he and the abc will get the pants sued off them. It would also be grounds for this journalist to never work in media again as he would be effectively gagging the families for the benefit of the accused.

Imagine how much would be covered up if journalists worked in this manner. We would be a waayyyyy worse society if this was the case.

Or

Censorship by some larger body to disallow the journalist from running the story in the interest of the accused. This is the definition of a cover up.

Yes this is a messy situation, but, the alternatives to how this whole situation played out would lead to EXTREMELY BAD outcomes for our society and in the end, the accused will have their opportunity to defend themselves, which goes against the idea that are not receiving natural justice. 
 

P.S. I’m not saying you are explicitly arguing for censorship, I’m saying the logical outcomes of people arguing the accused aren’t getting natural justice, would lead to censorship.

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.

5 minutes ago, BDA said:

24 hours seems like a very short timeframe to expect a response. Why the big hurry? But you would also think there are lines of communication if journalists want to contact AFL clubs with stories of such concern to their head coaches. I'm sure Clarkson and Fagan were contactable but also think you need to give longer than 24 hours

All by the by now, the story is out there. I'm looking forward to hearing all the details

 

24 hours isn't a lot you're right, but journos can't stand to sit on a story 1 second longer than they have to. That fear of being beaten to the punch drives them.

The request for comment from the journo to Fagan was on Monday right?

Wasn't that Brisbane's mad-Monday day?

Just another dimension to the timing...

My view is the late timing is much more convenient for the Journo, as the only response would be a denial and any more time may result in an injunction to stop going to press, particularly if the accuser is remaining nameless.

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so how come the abc get it wrong occasionally and get successfully sued?

you shouldn't over generalise. each case is specific

 

It is a very rare occurrence that the ABC has to pay up, considering stories are going out worldwide 24/7 

Nothing is ever 100% perfect, but Russell Jackson has a very good reputation so far. I am not saying that Clarkson and Fagen do not get a chance to reply, but Russell isn’t a trash journalist either 

7 minutes ago, BDA said:

24 hours seems like a very short timeframe to expect a response. Why the big hurry? But you would also think there are lines of communication if journalists want to contact AFL clubs with stories of such concern to their head coaches. I'm sure Clarkson and Fagan were contactable but also think you need to give longer than 24 hours

All by the by now, the story is out there. I'm looking forward to hearing all the details

 

These guys would be getting emails via their phones every day, they choose whether to respond. 
24 hours is a long time to open an important email in today’s world 

3 minutes ago, sue said:

Do you  think that if they had more than 24 hours they'd say anything beyond the complete denial they have made anyway?

Probably not but I don't know. If I was in that situation I'd definitely like more time to respond

4 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The request for comment from the journo to Fagan was on Monday right?

Wasn't that Brisbane's mad-Monday day?

Just another dimension to the timing...

My view is the late timing is much more convenient for the Journo, as the only response would be a denial and any more time may result in an injunction to stop going to press, particularly if the accuser is remaining nameless.

Yeah fair point there, could well have caught him on an off day. I'd still think his manager would be reachable though?

44 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so how come the abc get it wrong occasionally and get successfully sued?

you shouldn't over generalise. each case is specific

 

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

9 minutes ago, layzie said:

Yeah fair point there, could well have caught him on an off day. I'd still think his manager would be reachable though?

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

He couldn't go to press without an attempt...

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

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

11 minutes ago, layzie said:

I dreamt that I read something like that but wasn't sure because I read somewhere that you can't read in dreams but maybe I dreamt that I read that fact..

i can solve sudoko puzzles in my dreams. does that count?