|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Oct 9, 2012 18:15:10 GMT 10
I thought MW was pretty sensible about it. I didn't watch it, but I read the transcript. There are real questions about whether anyone had the right to record it. The penalties for recording a private conversation can be pretty steep. One of the comments is quite astute:It's apparently all too easy to forget that Jonathan Marshall wasn't at the meeting by accident and is undoubtedly capable of remembering the gist of everything said at a meeting. The ire of the Jones camp arises from the fact that Mr Marshall's 'memory' of the meeting was elevated from gist-ish to verbatum by his little (battery-powered) friend - and thus could be neither denied nor disputed.
It's doubtful that anyone at the gathering could or would forget what Mr Jones said about the PM's father so the issue of secret recordings is a bit of a red herring. If anything, this story makes a strong case for recording the speech of Right-Wingers with faulty or 'creative' memories - as in the 'forgetfulness' of the conveners about whether, or not, they remembered to remind everyone present that the Chatham House Rule would apply.
Had Mr Marshall been obliged to rely on his unaided memory, there is little doubt that he would have been branded a liar on both the offensive remark AND the Chatham House non-announcement ... Yep. I'd say that's on the money. The issue wasn't whether the reporter was allowed to report it - it was the fact that nobody could deny it (although some did try) |
|
zoot
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by zoot on Oct 9, 2012 18:22:08 GMT 10
I've yet to watch Media Watch but I don't doubt Mr Holmes makes a valid argument. However, I believe the "private" spray of the parrot was merely the last straw after his long history of abusing his position.
What we are witnessing is the decent people of Australia saying, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Oct 11, 2012 11:06:42 GMT 10
David Penberthy has been banned from appearing on 2GB, apparently for a column he wrote critical of Jones, reports The Tele.
"It is an interesting move from a network which is posturing as both a dogged defender of free speech, and the innocent victim of a vicious bullying campaign aimed at suppressing opinion."
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 4, 2012 12:26:46 GMT 10
Free speech is under threat yet again! Jones has failed in his latest bid to have a lawsuit claiming he racially vilified Sydney's Muslims three days before the Cronulla riots in 2005, dismissed. Mr Ekermawi first lodged his complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board in 2005, and seven years later he is still waiting for it to be heard in the ADT. It is not the only case to claim Jones and 2GB racially vilified Muslims prior to the Cronulla riots. In October Jones and 2GB were ordered to apologise on air for a separate racist rant where he called Sydney's Lebanese Muslims "vermin" who "infest our shores" and "rape" and "pillage" our nation. He has not yet apologised. In a related matter, expect News Ltd to jump on the bandwagon again post-Leveson, and check Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/dec/03/rupert-murdoch-leveson-inquiry |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 4, 2012 15:03:32 GMT 10
"Free speech is under threat yet again!"
Yeah, it's just totalitarian the way we ask people to apologise when they get it totally wrong.
It's just not free speech, man.
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 13, 2012 14:43:45 GMT 10
Now the Admin Appeals Tribunal is getting tough with Jones and forcing him to apologise on-air for his comments describing Lebanese Muslims as ''vermin'' and ''mongrels'' made in 2005. It's only taken 7 years.
And I wonder how sincere his apology will be this time, in the wake of his "apology" to Gillard about comments made about her father's death.
Of course the usual suspects will play up Jones as the victim again. Let's just see how long it takes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 13, 2012 22:52:11 GMT 10
It's astonishing. He did the wrong thing. Why is it so flamin' hard to just admit it? So much of our "battle for free speech" seems to be about never making powerful people admit when they get it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 17, 2012 12:42:52 GMT 10
His whole edifice falls if he he is forced to honestly admit error. Same for all the wing nuts. Who would take them seriously again?
|
|
