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.
-
@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.
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@jegga nah, it's still there
Thanks for sparing me giving Stuff some clicks.
Apparently a lot of news outlets didn’t take earlier articles about Covington even after the truth became known which will do doubt be mentioned in the lawsuits. -
Any more whispers about this? Or don’t the Players Assocation and the NZRU give a shit about their players being slandered?
@Kirwan said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Any more whispers about this? Or don’t the Players Assocation and the NZRU give a shit about their players being slandered?
Did anyone make a complaint to the paper first - after that you can go to the Press Council (or whatever it's called).
Something should come of this. It's lazy, sloppy or cynical journalism, and most of them should cost someone
-
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
This post shows why there should be further action. Reason has smeared his reputation and got basic facts wrong.
Look further up on the reports at the time to see what actually happened.
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
This post shows why there should be further action. Reason has smeared his reputation and got basic facts wrong.
Look further up on the reports at the time to see what actually happened.
@Kirwan absolutely. This was actually a legit nightmare case where the results were purely down to lab fuck ups. Only takes dickheads like Reason adding false info to keep it simmering away as a potential cover up etc. Not fair at all on Pat T. Really hope there is some legal action around this.
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
This post shows why there should be further action. Reason has smeared his reputation and got basic facts wrong.
Look further up on the reports at the time to see what actually happened.
@Kirwan I have read those articles and I don't understand why Reason wasn't dragged over hot coals for it. That's what makes it weird. Stuff even put this disclaimer at the bottom of Reason's original opinion when this all kicked off in 2017
Note: This column was written before the result of Patrick Tuipulotu's B-sample test, which was negative and fully exonerated the All Black. Drug Free Sport NZ boss Graeme Steel described that scenario, whereby the A-sample is positive and the B-sample is negative, as a "one in 10,000" occurrence.
Yet they are happy to run one two years later smearing Tuipulotu.
-
Maybe Tuipolotu just wants to get on with playing rugby and can't be bothered wasting time and energy on replying to Reason. I'd say the latter was hoping against all hope that the NZRU would issue a statement, giving Reason yet more publicity. He's probably disappointed by the silence.
-
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
Yes. That’s my original point.
I hope that Reason is lying. I really do.
But what if he’s not? The first complaint said stuff backs him and his research. That should not be ignored.
-
Maybe Tuipolotu just wants to get on with playing rugby and can't be bothered wasting time and energy on replying to Reason. I'd say the latter was hoping against all hope that the NZRU would issue a statement, giving Reason yet more publicity. He's probably disappointed by the silence.
@Billy-Tell said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
Maybe Tuipolotu just wants to get on with playing rugby and can't be bothered wasting time and energy on replying to Reason. I'd say the latter was hoping against all hope that the NZRU would issue a statement, giving Reason yet more publicity. He's probably disappointed by the silence.
Not a buyer at all. Never will be,
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
Yes. That’s my original point.
I hope that Reason is lying. I really do.
But what if he’s not? The first complaint said stuff backs him and his research. That should not be ignored.
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
There could also be a bit of truth to the story. Though you'd think that would be worth its own standalone article, rather than being tucked away in a bigger article.
Yes. That’s my original point.
I hope that Reason is lying. I really do.
But what if he’s not? The first complaint said stuff backs him and his research. That should not be ignored.
If he's not he should (would?) be writing a proper report and presenting his facts, not misrepresenting the known facts in an opinion column. If Stuff backs him and his research then they need to publish it.
Until he does (and they do) that there's no reason to believe any of his claims and it should be ignored.
