Reason and Tuipulotu
-
@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.
-
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
-
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
Those cases are completely different.
Here Reason has made a statement that's either objectively true or false. If it's false, he's liable.
The other case revolves around an interpretation of an event. That is subject to an honest opinion defense (which Reason cannot claim).
-
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
Those cases are completely different.
Here Reason has made a statement that's either objectively true or false. If it's false, he's liable.
The other case revolves around an interpretation of an event. That is subject to an honest opinion defense (which Reason cannot claim).
@Damo said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
Those cases are completely different.
Here Reason has made a statement that's either objectively true or false. If it's false, he's liable.
The other case revolves around an interpretation of an event. That is subject to an honest opinion defense (which Reason cannot claim).
Not to derail, but they are getting sued because they repeated statements that weren’t true, and had been shown not to be true by video before they published them.
-
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
It was defamation and the only case I remember was directed toward former John Parker who was making recommendations to NZC in the wake of that, hardly a journalist and hardly someone with the financial backing of a media organization.
edit: and after rereading some articles from around that time it wasn't even a publication, Parker essentially sent a white paper outlining his own thoughts of NZC's frailties around that time including the handling of the McCullum idea. Some of the recipients were in places of power in cricket thus the basis to bring a claim - but essentially it was a fern post sent by email (but properly spell checked and correctly formatted).
-
@Damo said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
Those cases are completely different.
Here Reason has made a statement that's either objectively true or false. If it's false, he's liable.
The other case revolves around an interpretation of an event. That is subject to an honest opinion defense (which Reason cannot claim).
Not to derail, but they are getting sued because they repeated statements that weren’t true, and had been shown not to be true by video before they published them.
@Kirwan said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@Damo said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
Not to bring American politics into this as that is a toxic barrell of waste, but it will be interesting to see how the defamation case the Covington students legal team has filed against the Washington Post goes and whether that is successful.
A free media is a critical part of democracy, but at the moment they do get away with straight up lies too often.
Those cases are completely different.
Here Reason has made a statement that's either objectively true or false. If it's false, he's liable.
The other case revolves around an interpretation of an event. That is subject to an honest opinion defense (which Reason cannot claim).
Not to derail, but they are getting sued because they repeated statements that weren’t true, and had been shown not to be true by video before they published them.
Not only that they didn’t remove the articles from their website after they were found to be false.
Peter Theil is a kiwi , maybe he can do a Gawker on stuff on Tuipulotus behalf?
-
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
It was defamation and the only case I remember was directed toward former John Parker who was making recommendations to NZC in the wake of that, hardly a journalist and hardly someone with the financial backing of a media organization.
edit: and after rereading some articles from around that time it wasn't even a publication, Parker essentially sent a white paper outlining his own thoughts of NZC's frailties around that time including the handling of the McCullum idea. Some of the recipients were in places of power in cricket thus the basis to bring a claim - but essentially it was a fern post sent by email (but properly spell checked and correctly formatted).
@rotated said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@No-Quarter said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Libel is a pretty new area of law, and generally if someone threatens legal action a retraction will be published - BMac got the media to backtrack a lot when he threatened legal action following the Taylor captaincy saga.
It was defamation and the only case I remember was directed toward former John Parker who was making recommendations to NZC in the wake of that, hardly a journalist and hardly someone with the financial backing of a media organization.
edit: and after rereading some articles from around that time it wasn't even a publication, Parker essentially sent a white paper outlining his own thoughts of NZC's frailties around that time including the handling of the McCullum idea. Some of the recipients were in places of power in cricket thus the basis to bring a claim - but essentially it was a fern post sent by email (but properly spell checked and correctly formatted).
OK thanks - my memory obviously not up to scratch there...
-
My spies tell me "lawyers" & "Mark Reason" have been mentioned in the same sentence in the Stuff offices in regards to this article.
@Smudge said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
My spies tell me "lawyers" & "Mark Reason" have been mentioned in the same sentence in the Stuff offices in regards to this article.
Interesting, I wonder if they have the money to defend him when he’s clearly in the wrong?
NBR who’s financial position is similarly shitty at first tried to throw Matthew Hooten under the bus .
https://m.facebook.com/matthew.hooton.77/posts/1809551815788424
-
@Smudge said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
My spies tell me "lawyers" & "Mark Reason" have been mentioned in the same sentence in the Stuff offices in regards to this article.
Interesting, I wonder if they have the money to defend him when he’s clearly in the wrong?
NBR who’s financial position is similarly shitty at first tried to throw Matthew Hooten under the bus .
https://m.facebook.com/matthew.hooton.77/posts/1809551815788424
@jegga It’s likely that Stuff has insurance cover for defamation in which case the insurance company could call the shots in terms of settlement. Not sure at what stage an editor would get them involved though, I imagine the lawyers would guide them on that. I’m not a lawyer but it looks to me like a clear libel. There’s no interpretation of the facts that supports his opinion so it was either careless and damaging or malicious and damaging. Either fails the “fair comment” defence.
-
@jegga It’s likely that Stuff has insurance cover for defamation in which case the insurance company could call the shots in terms of settlement. Not sure at what stage an editor would get them involved though, I imagine the lawyers would guide them on that. I’m not a lawyer but it looks to me like a clear libel. There’s no interpretation of the facts that supports his opinion so it was either careless and damaging or malicious and damaging. Either fails the “fair comment” defence.
-
@JC I’m sure you’re right , NBR would have had it too? Odd that they didn’t back up Hooten though
@jegga any insurance things would likely have simply been settled out of court between the Insurers lawyers, and once in thier hands, I expect no further comments would have been made to back him up.
-
@jegga It’s likely that Stuff has insurance cover for defamation in which case the insurance company could call the shots in terms of settlement. Not sure at what stage an editor would get them involved though, I imagine the lawyers would guide them on that. I’m not a lawyer but it looks to me like a clear libel. There’s no interpretation of the facts that supports his opinion so it was either careless and damaging or malicious and damaging. Either fails the “fair comment” defence.
@JC said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@jegga It’s likely that Stuff has insurance cover for defamation in which case the insurance company could call the shots in terms of settlement. Not sure at what stage an editor would get them involved though, I imagine the lawyers would guide them on that. I’m not a lawyer but it looks to me like a clear libel. There’s no interpretation of the facts that supports his opinion so it was either careless and damaging or malicious and damaging. Either fails the “fair comment” defence.
Maybe the 'editor' should have been involved much earlier and done some 'editing'?
My understanding was that was the job of an editor (or sub-editor) back in the day when news providers didn't just post opinion pieces.
A simple question to Reason of 'that's a strong comment there, can you support that with fact if required?' may have avoided any issue.
For what it is worth, I reckon Reason is just a lazy feck, came up with the concept about PTs captaincy and riffed of it with a shallow internet search where he misread about which sample was under dispute.
Public stocks are the answer here.
