All Blacks V Wallabies, Hong Kong, October 30th

[TRF Mr Fish]

What about the lies about economy/politics? Who's gonna sue them then, the economy?

Quade Cooper isn't the economy/politics...

 

[smartcooky]

What about the lies about economy/politics? Who's gonna sue them then, the economy?

Actually, we are talking about a Court case.

The media are held to a legal standard (Pietatis ut Judicium) when reporting on the proceedings from a court case.

They must NOT print falsehoods regarding the evidence, transcripts, proceedings, or any other matter relating to a court case.

This may not be the case in France, but it certainly is in any other civilised country

 

[Haysie]

But it's not the court case we're debating Cook - you yourself said that it was a mysterious out-of-court settlement had been reached.

 

[nickdnz]

You're aware that if the media say anything that's non-truthful, and harmful to a person, said person can sue, unless the media provide reasonable evidence to say they were informed otherwise?

I'd be interested in hearing your understanding on defamation, libel and slander, because you will find that it is rare that a publication is actually taken to court. More often than not, an individual will not take a company to court, and even less often does the individual win. It is expensive both time wise and financially, with a fairly low success rate. The individual has to in most cases, provide evidence that the source was intentionally published with lack of evidence, was intentionally attacking the individuals charcter and that the allogations were indeed allogations, rather than opinions or speculation. More often than not, little compensation will be issued, and the best you get is a retraction, which is often a small side note on the publication noting that the evidence provided was false. By the time the retraction is out, the story has often generated as much money and interest needed, for the small slap on the rist.

Also, you have to take in to account things such as framing, as most news stories will choose an angle to run with. It's not necesserly bias, but rather an implicit angle to what the viewer will be interested in, and present the information as such. This is totally legal. Because of this, it means you can present selective facts, and offer one side of a story over another. Media rarely produces the truth at all, rather a carefully selected and version of the truth which best generates interest. I think you're pretty naive to presume the media cannot publish almost anything that is not misleading.

 

[ranger]

You're aware that if the media say anything that's non-truthful, and harmful to a person, said person can sue, unless the media provide reasonable evidence to say they were informed otherwise?

How old are you?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

How old are you?

How about you answer my question first, mate?

 

[ranger]

How about you answer my question first, mate?

Okay then, yes, i was somewhat aware of that. Now you answer mine

 

[nickdnz]

How about you answer my question first, mate?

1. I think I did answer your question, if there was a question to that. I presumed it was mainly rhetorical dribble.

As it is, I suggest you take my word, in that the media very rarely produces the truth. It's always subject to a process of framing, editing and manipulation, that means if any of it is true, it will be presented in a way that will not necessarily be correct. Let me try and give you a regular example-

Three days after the Christchurch earthquake, there were a few individuals who had an existing insurance policy on a house they were selling, but recently bought house at that time was uninsured, and there was uncertainty over whether their long time insurance company would pay out for damages. They made an argument on Close Up, in which it was previously filmed before the show, showing the extent of the damage, the effects on the family, and offering a coherent argument. Then on the show, they did a live interview with a representitive of the insurence company, for a counter argument. The interview was live, which meant there could be interruptions, and the insurance representative was put on the spot, and subject to questions.

The reason this was initially chosen, is because of the relatively tame damage caused, the people who would be in the largest degree of uncertainty, would be shown. The show was always going to frame the argument in favour of the victums, as hard done by multi million dollar corporations aren't news worthy. Note that little on the show that was said was untrue, however because of the way the show is framed, there was never going to be an equal and balanced side of the story.

In war, do you think that all the propaganda is false? No, it's often just a very selective framing of facts, that presents one truth, but not the truth, and the media is held accountable for very little.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

1. I think I did answer your question, if there was a question to that. I presumed it was mainly rhetorical dribble.

As it is, I suggest you take my word, in that the media very rarely produces the truth. It's always subject to a process of framing, editing and manipulation, that means if any of it is true, it will be presented in a way that will not necessarily be correct. Let me try and give you a regular example-

Three days after the Christchurch earthquake, there were a few individuals who had an existing insurance policy on a house they were selling, but recently bought house at that time was uninsured, and there was uncertainty over whether their long time insurance company would pay out for damages. They made an argument on Close Up, in which it was previously filmed before the show, showing the extent of the damage, the effects on the family, and offering a coherent argument. Then on the show, they did a live interview with a representitive of the insurence company, for a counter argument. The interview was live, which meant there could be interruptions, and the insurance representative was put on the spot, and subject to questions.

The reason this was initially chosen, is because of the relatively tame damage caused, the people who would be in the largest degree of uncertainty, would be shown. The show was always going to frame the argument in favour of the victums, as hard done by multi million dollar corporations aren't news worthy. Note that little on the show that was said was untrue, however because of the way the show is framed, there was never going to be an equal and balanced side of the story.

In war, do you think that all the propaganda is false? No, it's often just a very selective framing of facts, that presents one truth, but not the truth, and the media is held accountable for very little.

I don't think we're on the same page, where in your example was a lie told?

Okay then, yes, i was somewhat aware of that. Now you answer mine

I'm at Uni, if you must know.

 

[Tomsey]

Actually, we are talking about a Court case.

The media are held to a legal standard (Pietatis ut Judicium) when reporting on the proceedings from a court case.

They must NOT print falsehoods regarding the evidence, transcripts, proceedings, or any other matter relating to a court case.

This may not be the case in France, but it certainly is in any other civilised country

You know too much useless ****. The rules of rugby, the latin translation for "legal standard". Do you know the word to every Taylor Swift song by any chance?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

You know too much useless ****. The rules of rugby, the latin translation for "legal standard". Do you know the word to every Taylor Swift song by any chance?

Ooh I do!

 

[nickdnz]

You know too much useless ****. The rules of rugby, the latin translation for "legal standard". Do you know the word to every Taylor Swift song by any chance?

Well, if the rules of rugby are useless ****, on the rugby forum, then what is useful?

I don't think we're on the same page, where in your example was a lie told?

That was an easy example of how the media can manipulate an event. For example I could take the Cooper scenario, and choose to make it sound how I like. I could say -

Quade Cooper, Wallabies' bad-boy, has yet another black mark on his young career. Cooper (22), has recently had charges for his burglary dropped, with a shady out of court settlement, which leaves many wondering why Cooper got off with little more than a fine. Cooper has refused to comment much further on the situation, however he has issued a public apology. Once again this shows that celebrities are able to get off committing serious offences, without retribution.

In this account, I've done nothing illegal, and yet I've framed the article to suggest that Quade Cooper is clearly guilty.

Quade Cooper, Wallabies' rising star, has had an out of court settlement with his suggested involvement in a burglary. The 22 year old Wallabie fly half, whom is well known to his friends and family as a model citizen, has issued a heart found public apology, reiterating that while he was not guilty of the offences, he is scincerly apologetic for any damage this has done to the publics view on rugby. Cooper is believed to continue training with the Wallabies in this up coming series. Once again this shows that even upstanding public figures, are at risk of false accusations.

There is nothing illegal in this, and yet I've presented the same evidence, learly stating that Cooper is not guilty.

My point is that the media does not need to tell lies, to not tell the truth. They can take an event and word it in almost anyway they want. I've just given you the same event, that both have different outcomes. Neither of them are lies, but neither of them are true.

What University do you go to?

 

[ranger]

I don't think we're on the same page, where in your example was a lie told?



I'm at Uni, if you must know.

Let me guess, Waikato? you doing leisure studies bro?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Well, if the rules of rugby are useless ****, on the rugby forum, then what is useful?


That was an easy example of how the media can manipulate an event. For example I could take the Cooper scenario, and choose to make it sound how I like. I could say -


In this account, I've done nothing illegal, and yet I've framed the article to suggest that Quade Cooper is clearly guilty.


There is nothing illegal in this, and yet I've presented the same evidence, learly stating that Cooper is not guilty.

My point is that the media does not need to tell lies, to not tell the truth. They can take an event and word it in almost anyway they want. I've just given you the same event, that both have different outcomes. Neither of them are lies, but neither of them are true.

What University do you go to?

I agree that the way media frames things it may influence people, but Cookie merely listed the facts - there was no biased involved, there were no lies - just like your example. I'm not disagreeing that media can cast a certain light on information, but they can't just make things up.

And I'm at Auck.

 

[skittles]

Apparently general knowledge = useless **** nowadays. Sad, really.

 

[ranger]

I agree that the way media frames things it may influence people, but Cookie merely listed the facts - there was no biased involved, there were no lies - just like your example. I'm not disagreeing that media can cast a certain light on information, but they can't just make things up.

And I'm at Auck.

To use a rugby example, how many times have you read in the paper; (insert player here) rumoured to be signing with (insert team here) or (insert team here) rumoured to be interested in player)..

Some of the time the paper has heard something, but sometimes (and this actually happens) they just make **** up. Like Johnny Wilkinson was apparently approached by the Blues. When interviewed Pat Lam came out and said that the thought hadn't even entered his mind until he read about himself chasing Wilkinsons signature in the morning paper.

Seriously, have you never heard of tabloid news? Sure there are ethics standards and laws etc but you would have to be very naive to think that everything you read is the gospel..

 

[Haysie]

To use a rugby example, how many times have you read in the paper; (insert player here) rumoured to be signing with (insert team here) or (insert team here) rumoured to be interested in player)..

Some of the time the paper has heard something, but sometimes (and this actually happens) they just make **** up. Like Johnny Wilkinson was apparently approached by the Blues. When interviewed Pat Lam came out and said that the thought hadn't even entered his mind until he read about himself chasing Wilkinsons signature in the morning paper.

Seriously, have you never heard of tabloid news? Sure there are ethics standards and laws etc but you would have to be very naive to think that everything you read is the gospel..

I agree with this. The News/Media has just about as much idea of what is really going on as the general public, most stories are heard second hand or through an opinionated source anyhow.
However, the Lote Tuqiri situation not long ago is a case in point of the media reporting only the facts (which makes a nice change). I believe that there was a conscious effort from Team Lote (i.e. his manager and other types of officialdom) to keep the media from blowing it out of proportion by releasing very little information.
So if it's being recognised as a potential threat to a player's career in that circumstance, surely you can see that the media in general are notorious for doing it?

 

[Larksea]

So I'm not entitled to my opinion because YOU say so? So who made you the Headmaster then?
LMFAO

Anyway, I am not going to debate this, I am merely going to state some facts, you can make up your own mind.

FACT: Cooper was witnessed stealing property (a fact in evidence that was heard in Court at his December 11, 2009 hearing).

FACT: The charges were dropped after mediation between Cooper and the victims, conducted through the DofJ and the Attorney General. The details were kept secret. (I wonder why that is?)

FACT: Cooper apologised for his actions (if he didn't do it, what is he apologising for?)

FACT: The ARU then conducted an internal review. As a result, Cooper was fined AU$7500, which was for this action, as well as failing to report that he had been charged for an earlier traffic offence.

Draw your own conclusions, I have.



I contest this point.

Long kick and then a quick throw-in by Australia
It is by no means certain that Australia would have been able to take a quick throw-in. Keep in mind that as soon as the ball crosses into touch, there is no longer any offside under the 10m Law. When Donald kicked, most of his team-mates were offside under the 10m Law, and could not advance until he, or another onside player, overtook them. As soon as the ball goes into touch, all those (previously offside) players can then rush up and make it difficult to take a quick throw-in, or at the very least, they could have set up a defensive line further upfield.

Short kick out deep so that a quick throw in was no possible.In this case, the time taken to form the line-out would ensure that the clock wound down past 80 min. Also there would have been an opportunity for the All Blacks to contest for the ball at the throw-in; for Australia's throw-in to be not straight, or for some other line-out infringement. Also there was the chance for the All Blacks to get their defensive screens set up.

Long kick straight downfield.
This simply handed Australia the ball back with no chance to contest, with the All Black defence not set, and with Australian broken field runners able to easily get into position to mount an attack.

The short kick deep into touch was the highest percentage of the kicking options, the long kick downfield was the lowest, and the long kick to touch was somewhere in between.

When you are five points in front with just seconds to go on the clock, taking the lowest percentage option is plain dumb rugby. IMO, he panicked!

I agree that what he probably should have done was to run it up, ball in hand, and back his forwards to support him. All they needed was two or three quick pick and drives into pre-set rucks, and then when the hooter went, kick it out.

It's debatable, reality is that when donald kicked the ball if it had gone out their was pleanty of time for a lineout. And it would have had to be a lot closer to prevent a quick throw in.

yes Aussie could have stuffed the linout, same way they could have stuffed recieving & Running back the kick. from what I saw of the game the AB's lineout wasn't as strong as it has been recently.

Actually if you think about it a long touch finder is easer to get via a quick throw in than fielding a long kick in play near the touch line. Doesn't matter if you knock a ball in gathering it when over the sideline it's still your lineout, dont have to worry about going into touch while fielding the ball either.

I'm not saying what donald did was perfect, but it's not worse than a number of mistakes other players made in those last few min. Hell if it had been a good chase and Toeava had made his tackle we'd all be talking about something completely different. IMO it wasn't a bad kick from what I recall it was long, near the touch. credit should be given to Aussie because they fielded it very well

 

[smartcooky]

You know too much useless ****. The rules of rugby, the latin translation for "legal standard". Do you know the word to every Taylor Swift song by any chance?

Sounds like professional jealousy to me.

PS: Its not the latin translation for "legal standard", Pietatis ut Judicium IS a legal standard, that means "Duty to the Court"

PPS: WTF is Taylor Swift? (Don't bother answering, because IDGAF)

 

[Shaggy]

It's debatable, reality is that when donald kicked the ball if it had gone out their was pleanty of time for a lineout. And it would have had to be a lot closer to prevent a quick throw in.

yes Aussie could have stuffed the linout, same way they could have stuffed recieving & Running back the kick. from what I saw of the game the AB's lineout wasn't as strong as it has been recently.

Actually if you think about it a long touch finder is easer to get via a quick throw in than fielding a long kick in play near the touch line. Doesn't matter if you knock a ball in gathering it when over the sideline it's still your lineout, dont have to worry about going into touch while fielding the ball either.

I'm not saying what donald did was perfect, but it's not worse than a number of mistakes other players made in those last few min. Hell if it had been a good chase and Toeava had made his tackle we'd all be talking about something completely different. IMO it wasn't a bad kick from what I recall it was long, near the touch. credit should be given to Aussie because they fielded it very well

I don't think anyone's taking anything away from the way the Aussies played, or the way they capitalised on the options the AB's chose, and what's done is done I guess, but if it was me (and I had the ability to do it ... and I don't), I would have kicked it as far up the field as possible and into the stands, preventing a quick throw in, and then relying on the AB's defense from the newly formed set piece/line out.

Carter said taking it in to the ruck/forwards was the way he would have gone ... anyway it's done ... next match!