Posts by Gen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No I can't see a plot either Russell. I just think the way it's worded is unfortunate.
Craig I interpreted that point as such people being afforded a higher level of ethical and legal protection than everyone else.
I think all journalists should be careful about defaming people, regardless of who they are.
Having truth on your side doesn't necessarily mean a good story will get published. Especially when your employer thinks that the subject of your story is litigation happy and has deeper pockets than they do. Which is a shame.
-
Most of it Russell, I agree, is Cactus Kate making a mountain out of a molehill. But the point re “categories of people” is not journalism 101. If it’s a training document, this kind of guideline strikes me as even worse than if it was a policy document.
More seasoned journos will have a feel for how to approach potentially contentious stories, but teaching the young ‘uns to avoid controversial stories about the wealthy and well- connected (especially politicians!) strikes me as a massive de-knackering of the fourth estate.
I was a libel lawyer in a former life. Yes, some people had a reputation for being litigation happy. Yes that was factored into the risk assessment of the story.
But deciding on a case by case basis to reign in a story on a celeb’s crash diet versus giving across-the-board advice (to the largest newspaper in the country) to treat whole categories of people - and arguably categories of people who most require scrutiny - strikes me as quite different.
That said, apart from that point (which is a shocker), the rest of the document seems pretty innocuous. I hope this isn't seen as carrying out an an adolescent blog feud - nerdily, it's a topic quite close to my heart.