Reason and Tuipulotu
-
@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.
-
@Stargazer they shouldnt have to, he should have to prove what he is saying is true.
@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.
-
@MN5 he still cant state things that are untrue, unless he knows them to be fact, Otherwise he should say it is fiction
@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?
-
@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?
-
@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'
-
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.
@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?
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
-
@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?
@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 I think it probably would. Which sucks as you can just say whatever and then retract in a meaningless way.
-
@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..
-
@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..
@jegga said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@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..
best thing PT can do is kick arse in a WC winning AB team....but even that wouldn't shut Reason up....
-
We could all lodge one of these
http://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/complaints
It’ll put his dishonesty on record and damage what little credibility he has.
-
So, if anyone wants to submit a complaint, this may be helpful:
What Reason says:
The Blues have struggled with their leadership in recent seasons and the appointment of Tuipulotu is not the way forward. He failed a drugs test in Chicago but was excused when the North American lab botched the 'B' sample. It's not a good look for a Super Rugby captain.What NZR has published:
New Zealand Rugby (NZR) and the New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA) received notification today from Six Nations that the results of testing on Tuipulotu’s doping control B sample from the US-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratory Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City confirmed no presence of a Specified Substance listed on the WADA’s 2016 Prohibited List. The test result is negative and, as a result, Patrick’s provisional suspension has been lifted with immediate effect.http://www.allblacks.com/News/30338/patrick-tuipulotu-cleared-of-doping
.
The articles below contain a good overview of events.
The only possibility for Reason being right is that the American lab has come up with an explanation (as requested) that proves that it was actually the (negative) B sample that was wrong and not the (positive) A sample.
The World Anti-Doping Agency and Six Nations Rugby have demanded the laboratory in charge All Black lock Patrick Tuipulotu's drug tests explain the discrepancy in their results.I can't imagine that there is such an explanation, as such a statement from the Lab would no doubt have had a lot of publicity and repercussions.
RNZ article:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/sport/324206/wada-and-six-nations-demand-answers-on-tuipulotu
.
And the article posted above:
.
I haven't been able to find any media release about this matter from World Rugby, Six Nations, WADA or Drugfree Sport NZ.
