by Booney » Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:56 am
by Rik E Boy » Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:24 pm
Booney wrote:Read the apologies again :
"(The Age/Nine)....acknowledges that the camp was run in good faith and with the players’ interests front of mind. If the publications were taken to suggest otherwise, Nine withdraws that suggestion."
It makes absolutely no mention of how the camp was actually run and what fallout was caused. They only acknowledge the intent, not the execution or outcome. It's a very cunning apology and much of what Wilson and McClure reported has not been retracted at all, suggesting it's not untrue.
by stan » Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:54 am
by Booney » Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:15 am
by DOC » Mon Feb 14, 2022 5:36 am
by MW » Mon Feb 14, 2022 7:38 am
by Booney » Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:26 am
MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
by MW » Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:48 am
Booney wrote:MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
Again, it comes down to the information he was given and by whom. Firstly, he wouldn't trust them any longer and, secondly, he'd not be sending them a Xmas card.
by Booney » Mon Feb 14, 2022 9:01 am
MW wrote:Booney wrote:MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
Again, it comes down to the information he was given and by whom. Firstly, he wouldn't trust them any longer and, secondly, he'd not be sending them a Xmas card.
So isn't the onus on the journo to verify the information from the source is correct before going into print? cant simply say "a source told me" and go into print, which is what they are doing now and finally being held accountable.
by MW » Mon Feb 14, 2022 9:04 am
by cracka » Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:24 am
MW wrote:So he's written something, had to retract it legally, but you think he held back writing something else?
by MW » Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:39 am
cracka wrote:MW wrote:So he's written something, had to retract it legally, but you think he held back writing something else?
I would guess he's had a source, written something, Collective Minds have threatened to sue & reveal his source which would probably break a confidentiality clause so he's retracted article to keep source protected
by RB » Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:22 pm
MW wrote:Booney wrote:MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
Again, it comes down to the information he was given and by whom. Firstly, he wouldn't trust them any longer and, secondly, he'd not be sending them a Xmas card.
So isn't the onus on the journo to verify the information from the source is correct before going into print?
by mots02 » Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:50 pm
Booney wrote:MW wrote:Booney wrote:MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
Again, it comes down to the information he was given and by whom. Firstly, he wouldn't trust them any longer and, secondly, he'd not be sending them a Xmas card.
So isn't the onus on the journo to verify the information from the source is correct before going into print? cant simply say "a source told me" and go into print, which is what they are doing now and finally being held accountable.
It is, makes me hope his little Churchill comment on Twitter has him confident there is something still to be unearthed.
by stan » Mon Feb 14, 2022 3:58 pm
I agree with 100%.MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
by tigerpie » Mon Feb 14, 2022 5:03 pm
by Vamos » Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:00 pm
Booney wrote:MW wrote:If this in anyway starts to keep these ambulance chasing parasites accountable it can only be a good thing.
Again, it comes down to the information he was given and by whom. Firstly, he wouldn't trust them any longer and, secondly, he'd not be sending them a Xmas card.
by cracka » Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:25 pm
MW wrote:cracka wrote:MW wrote:So he's written something, had to retract it legally, but you think he held back writing something else?
I would guess he's had a source, written something, Collective Minds have threatened to sue & reveal his source which would probably break a confidentiality clause so he's retracted article to keep source protected
I stopped reading after that.
by stan » Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:27 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |