Reason and Tuipulotu
-
TV broadcasts are subject to Broadcasting standards, which include being factually correct, surely there is something that governs clickbaiiters for a major 'news' outlet?
And broadcasting standards can be questioned by the general public, surely similar standards must apply here?
-
Fuck that makes my blood boil. There is zero doubt that the A sample was messed up and caused the false positive. Totally cleared by the B sample and he still spent time in purgatory while that was sorted out. For Reason (lol the irony) to essentially say it was a testing error of a positive result is bullshit.
Really hope we see some action on this from NZRU and/or Pat.
-
@taniwharugby said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
TV broadcasts are subject to Broadcasting standards, which include being factually correct, surely there is something that governs clickbaiiters for a major 'news' outlet?
And broadcasting standards can be questioned by the general public, surely similar standards must apply here?
The NZ Media Council is the organisation dealing with complaints against websites like stuff. The question remains, how does a member of the public prove that Reason is lying? A full decision of Drugfree NZ will count as facts; I haven't seen the decision on PT, so don't know whether it contains enough info to base a complaint on.
-
@Stargazer they shouldnt have to, he should have to prove what he is saying is true.
-
-
@MN5 he still cant state things that are untrue, unless he knows them to be fact, Otherwise he should say it is fiction
-
@taniwharugby Yes, it all depends on the standard of proof required, but a member of the public making a complaint about an article that they claim is defamatory and not based on facts, should at least make it plausible that the article is factually incorrect. You can't just say he's lying and leave it at that. You'll have to indicate why.
-
@taniwharugby said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@MN5 he still cant state things that are untrue, unless he knows them to be fact, Otherwise he should say it is fiction
I don't hate him to the degree you do but again, is he guarded by having freedom of speech?
-
@MN5 dont think freedom of speech gives you the right to go around publically making up lies about people, and if not lies, he needs to back it up.
All he seems to have done is thrown a line out there, if he was of the opinion it was untrue or a cover up, maybe he should have written that it was his opinion, as this would likely offer him the protection under 'freedom of speech'
-
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
I actually emailed Stuff and queried the statement. Got an email back saying thanks for the email and they stick by Mark's opinion and that his articles are always well researched.
Did you tell them we have an entire thread here dedicated with providing them with constructive criticism?
-
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
I actually emailed Stuff and queried the statement. Got an email back saying thanks for the email and they stick by Mark's opinion and that his articles are always well researched.
Interesting that they responded. I contacted them a couple times on a piece that was a complete fabrication, and was proved so a day later..no response and article is still up.
-
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
I actually emailed Stuff and queried the statement. Got an email back saying thanks for the email and they stick by Mark's opinion and that his articles are always well researched.
Opinion?
Yeah the article is headed up as an "opinion" piece. And its wrong....
-
-
@Siam said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
But doesn't a piss weak retraction on say, "page" 36 get them off the legal hook?
Doesn’t that only apply if the libelled party agrees? I’m guessing 99% of the time the person who’s been libelled doesn’t have the time or more importantly the coin to take legal action..
Independent Forum for Resolving Complaints
