[LINK] grog gamut

[Richard Chirgwin]

  Forgiven for the name confusion!

On 4/10/10 5:25 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 15:30 +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> However: if there's genuine news value in the story, why should News
>> *not* publish?
> On that basis, "if I can find it out and anyone is interested, it's OK
> to publish". Nope, doesn't fly.
>
> What was attacked here by News Limited was the man's privacy.
Is it that simple? Publication takes place in public; is there an 
absolute right to privacy once someone has decided to do something in 
public?
> To what end? The arguments given for the "outing" were utterly specious.
> There was no public interest at all, unless you belong to that peculiar
> sect that believes public servants should have no opinions of their own
> and if they do should not utter them.
No: in fact, in that context, there's a paradoxical benefit to flow from 
the "outing". The author hasn't been sacked; there is a tiny opening of 
a window of precedent. That's a good thing.
> They might have been some legitimate public interest if it had been
> (say) Julia Gillard blogging, but it wasn't.
>
>>   I can't think of anything in Australian law that
>> guarantees anonymity of a publisher
> There is law, there are ethics, and there is common courtesy and simple
> respect. News Limited gets one out of four - nice work.
Two out of four. I think the breach of ethics - at least, the formal 
ethics of the trade - is not certain.
>> motivations rather than boring
>> facts determine the right and wrong of a story.
> So anything that's not against the law is OK? Jeez, Kim.
Well, I'd refer also to the code of ethics. But sorry, if someone said 
"I don't like what I say are the motives for Journalist X writing Story 
Y", that's a chaos. Who's interpretations of nice motives apply?
>> I'm also a little offended by the theme that only journalists who agree
>> with the condemnation of News Limited are capable of thinking about the
>> story or offering worthwhile contribution. Everybody else, and it's just
>> "journalists sticking together, don't understand the world of social
>> media, blah blah blah".
> It's not against the law to say that! How can you be offended by
> something that is not against the law?
Easily, Karl. The offence is personal; I can certainly be offended, as 
can you, even if you or I are being unreasonable, or if reasonable, 
can't do anything about it.

Cheers,
Richard C
> Regards, K.
>