Nine has admitted the central claim of a television news report about a federal MP – which earned the network a Walkley Award – is untrue, leaving the media company potentially liable for a massive damages payout.
On March 27 last year, Nine aired a segment on its nightly news bulletin in which then federal MP Andrew Laming was accused of committing the criminal offence of taking an inappropriate “upskirting” photo of a Brisbane store worker, Crystal White, without her consent…Given the imputations carried in the news report, any damages payout awarded to Dr Laming would likely be a six-figure sum.
In February, Nine journalists Peter Fegan and Rebeka Powell won a Walkley Award in the television/video news reporting category for their submitted work titled “The Investigation of Andrew Laming”, despite the defamation action being before the courts at the time.
Walkley Foundation chief executive Shona Martyn said the journalism awards body “is aware this matter is before the courts and will monitor the situation”.
-
Latest Posts
- Hamas and the Western left see rape as politics by other means
- The Suddenly Orphaned War
- Destined for sculpted immortality, legends do what they do best
- Tingle: Anti-Semitism overblown, Hamas-lovers the real victims
- Conquered
- The Cohen Admonition
- Aussie deep state still getting the hang of rigging a prosecution
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- December 2023 (6)
- November 2023 (88)
- October 2023 (100)
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
David Leyonhjelm was forced to pay six figures for offending a sacred cow.
On the whale-scale, surely this is at least seven figures.
Oh dear. Now I’m worried that Bucco will be here to point out that by using “lie”, you’re presuming the worst possible interpretation of what happened.
I am concerned the shop worker in question was named Crystal. At least it wasn’t Honey, Bunny or Waterfall I guess.
Serious question, would damages include loss of future income?
Another two or three parliaments on a parliamentary salary in a safe seat would have to worth a fair bit.
Perverse Preposterous
It’s sweet of you to worry so much about a fellow commenter.
Some of us also worry that your political single focus might blind you to events that do not fit your preferred “narrative”. We suggest that you even occasionally question your beliefs in matters like the mental state of Creepy Joe and the fascist behaviour of left wing groups such as BLM and Ante-fa (precursor to fascism)
Even if it had been true, do they actually give Walkleys for stories about upskirting?
cuckoo
Like many such stories, it was not about “upskirting”. It was about exposing those eeeevvillll conservatives as sex-crazed animals.
BJ
Ante-fa. I like that. Entirely on the money.
Way to prove my point, dipstick.
Laming should sue the Walkleys too, they’ve selected a piece of journalism for elevation that (as it’s been retracted) is based on fiction, promoting it and giving it more credence as fact.
It’s very hard to get any sense out of you bucco.
In case you hadn’t noticed, defamation can happen if a journalist publishes a story they believe to be true, but later turns out to be a lie by an informant. Do you think it’s fair to say that the journalist “lied” too in publishing a story in those circumstances?
Perverse Preposterous
Do you think it’s fair to say that the journalist “lied” too in publishing a story in those circumstances?
Perhaps, but do you agree that the j’ismist was criminally incompetent to fail to check before publishing? Was this a story that the j’ismist thought was simply “Too good (for advancing the “narrative”) to check? Was the individual a j’ismist, or essentially a political campaigner?
See also, Porter, Christian and Pell, George for more probable examples of the “j’ismist” as political campaigner.
From the report.
It’s a basic tenet of journalism, particularly journalism that is to be awarded with excellence, that the basic facts of the article be checked properly. Identifying that the accused didn’t actually take the photo and that the article in question actually resided on the social media of the alleged victim, is such an obvious basic fact check that is seems almost impossible that damage to Mr Laming was not the purpose of the exercise.
They also didn’t remove the article when requested and when the basic facts were pointed out.
You pretend to believe in fairness Perpo, but you really just don’t.
Just part of the routine exaggeration that passes for commentary here?
Defamation is a tricky area because of the rubberiness of how reasonable is reasonable when trying to ascertain whether an allegation is true and should be published.
I had a look at Wikipedia to find out more about Andrew Laming and was interested to read:
On Australia Day in 2014, at a barbecue in his electorate of Bowman, Laming sculled a beer while performing a handstand
He can’t be all bad!
Perverse Preposterous
You are quite correct, I withdraw the word “criminally”, and replace it with “grossly”. Thanks for highlighting this issue.
So do the “journalists” they have to return the Walkleys ?
The goal of getting him out of politics was achieved. Any damages will be seen as worthwhile .Probably endless appeals and insurance anyway.
Nobody totally lacks redeeming features, even the milky bar kid. That said, I suspect Laming is another one of those typical sociopathic narcissistic politician we seem to be infested with these days. For example, in addition to his beer sculling capabilities we could also say at least he is not a Walkley award winning journalist.
This is the second time in two days Perpo has tried and failed dismally to defend the indefensible. He then resorts to a sad attempt at being the exaggeration police. Which is pretty laughable given the invective he constantly throws around.
Not much self reflection.
I reckon Paul Barry would agree with every take I have.
Look, no mainstream politician would take this blog (or the old Catallaxy) seriously because it is just routinely ridiculous hyperbole that lives in Right wing conspiracy and hyperpartisan conservative Catholic world (where even the Pope isn’t Catholic enough, and fascism with a Christian flavour gives people the horn.)
Prospero, you’ve expressed your loathing of the site many times.
If it’s not your thing, move on.
@ Buccaneer
The Exaggeration Police starring Hyperbole Prospero.
Now there’s a movie just begging to be made by no one.
“Look, no mainstream politician would take this blog (or the old Catallaxy) seriously because it is just routinely ridiculous hyperbole that lives in Right wing conspiracy and hyperpartisan conservative Catholic world (where even the Pope isn’t Catholic enough, and fascism with a Christian flavour gives people the horn.)”
The writer of these words needs urgent psychological help.
What are you doing here Cassie? Can’t find an ageing politician to harass on the street?
“Prospero says:
1 September, 2022 at 1:06 pm
What are you doing here Cassie? Can’t find an ageing politician to harass on the street?”
No Preposterous, I don’t harass anyone on a street, but since you’ve raised the topic, it’s nice that you care so much about John Howard’s wellbeing. Were you so caring when a man threw a shoe at John Howard on Q&A? I bet you thought that was a hoot. Oh and were you so caring when Tony Abbott was assaulted in broad daylight in Hobart back in 2017? I bet you thought that was a hoot also.
You’re a dickhead. As I wrote above, you need help.
And now for the BRS decision.
If you don’t want to be ridiculed about how you made John Howard shake on the street by force of your, ahem, assertiveness, you shouldn’t talk about it on a public blog.
I have a stalker, a very creepy and misogynistic stalker.
Perverse Preposterous
I reckon Paul Barry would agree with every take I have.
What makes you think that we care what a pompous prat like Paul Barry (or you) thinks?
Look, no mainstream politician would take this blog (or the old Catallaxy) seriously because it is just routinely ridiculous hyperbole that lives in Right wing conspiracy and hyperpartisan conservative Catholic world (where even the Pope isn’t Catholic enough, and fascism with a Christian flavour gives people the horn.)
So why do you waste your time here? Is your life so dull and mundane that you get a frisson of excitement being here? A couple of weeks ago you mentioned the need to get back to work, but you still spend a lot of time here.
Is your job so irrelevant to anything that no-one notices how little work you do? Worse, are you so incompetent that your employer prefers you to be wasting time here, rather than causing actual damage in the workplace?
Enquiring minds etc.
Citing Paul Barry as your reference point for reasonableness is hilarious. It just demonstrates how unhinged you are.
Then you go on to prove the rest of my point. Few people other than the small percentage of horrid lefties that pretend debate includes the tactics you are constantly outed for on this blog care much for the way you conduct yourself.
If this blog is so terrible, why would you spend so much of your time here, unless someone is paying you to be here.
You’ve embarrassed yourself so many times.
Buccaneer
If this blog is so terrible, why would you spend so much of your time here, unless someone is paying you to be here.
There is nothing else of significance in his shriveled life?
Well, prospero does get social interaction here.
He did recently criticise the ABC for paying scant attention to the closure of Travistock clinic in the UK. I thought you would have given him marks for that.
I’ve suggested they look at the grubby attempts of RW to smear Biden as a daughter molester, but it might be too much to dignify with attention. We’ll see.
Media watch makes token attempt at criticism for egregious omission of lefty overreach, suddenly we should all forget the vast history of taxpayer funds abused by the ABC and return to get our daily indoctrination. You truly live in a fantasy world.
Close it down, sell the property and assets, pass legislation to never repeat it again. You can pay for your own wankfest.
Be prepared for permanent disappointment. (I can only think of one program I watch that is not on the ABC or SBS, and I appreciate your contributions to my viewing habits.)
Maybe I can make up stickers or badges or something as a reward.
“I help fund the ABC (and someone appreciates me for it)”
[Unhappy face symbol beneath that]
No surprises in any of that, you’re just proving Cassie right.
In unrelated news:
Th
More good news, for some of us.
Perverse Preposterous
He did recently criticise the ABC for paying scant attention to the closure of Travistock clinic in the UK.
Awarded one mark out of a potential score of 1,000.
I’ve suggested they look at the grubby attempts of RW to smear Biden as a daughter molester, but it might be too much to dignify with attention.
Perhaps they looked at the video evidence of his other pre-occupations, and decided not to highlight any related issue?
Be prepared for permanent disappointment. (I can only think of one program I watch that is not on the ABC or SBS, and I appreciate your contributions to my viewing habits.)
Much is thereby explained. The limited range of general knowledge, the narrow outlook, the self-satisfied pompousness. And those are the good points.
Maybe I can make up stickers or badges or something as a reward.
Make them up in large quantity, post them to CL. We will ensure that they receive appropriate distribution. There are so many public toilets around the nation in need of urinal targets.
The Walkley does not seem to have in place any self-reflective guiding principles, although a throwaway claim in the promotional material is that the Walkley seeks truth. Yet the awards are made not for seeking truth but for revealing truth, even when it is not truth which is revealed and prized but fabrications and lies. A complaint mechanism might be useful in the circumstances, but the Walkley does not have one.
In other respects, an embedded caveat in the promotional material disavows conflicts of interest in the judging process, which is ironic, since the Walkley ‘judges’ and board are all very very tightly affiliated with the mass media and not at all independent.
Investigative journalists worth their salt, and seeking nothing more, might be interested in following up on the Walkley set-up.
CH9 ads are mostly gummint and defacto gummint ads. We’re paying for Ch9. So it’s really a win against taxpayers. Which is not a win.
I can only think of one program I watch that is not on the ABC or SBS …
Is that your rehabilitation program?
I should have said, only one program that I routinely watch. It’s not that I’m like someone who would never go to the ABC on principle. I channel surf sometimes and end up watching bits and pieces of things. Not much on channel 9 ever appeals, even for a short visit, tho.
CL, Steve from Brisbane had a 1 post per day limit imposed by Sinc.
He quickly lost interest.
Not telling you how to suck eggs or anything, but maybe a current day commenter with similar mannerisms and blog clogging intent needs similar treatment.
A Walkley plus $1 buys a coffee at 7-Eleven.
I can’t think of the last time I watched something FTA. All streaming at a time convenient etc etc.