Hard News: Being Worked
94 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
OK then, I’ll start by asking the dumb question:
What does pwned mean?
-
What does pwned mean?
To be defeated, especially in a humiliating way.
-
I tend to think it's sort of fighting fire with fire for Team Veitch.
Clearly someone on team Dunne-Powell leaked the initial allegations, and all the other information that followed it. Veitch has said (and we all know) there is two sides to every story, and I think until recently we only heard one (and even then we've only heard one really, Veitch hasn't and can't put across his side of what happened).
Personally I think the way this entire thing has played out in the media is pretty terrible. I understand, price of fame and all that, but it's so far and above what might happen for any other person.
I note also the 'kicked down the stairs' angle seems to have died? There's nothing in even the more meaty Star-Times article about that, it says "[...]he kicked her two or three times in her lower back and she collapsed." - And even then it wasn't until two-months later that anyone realised she had a fractured vertebrae.
There is no excuse for violence, but we've been playing a lot of Chinese Whispers so far. If anything the leaked Police summary is the most concrete reports we've seen of anything in the case.
-
I personally find this whole trial by media business despicable. Since when was it ok to attack an alleged victim and include photos of them in an article? Journalistic integrity??!
-
Clearly someone on team Dunne-Powell leaked the initial allegations, and all the other information that followed it.
I don't think the actual sequence of events is that clear, and I get the impression that the D-P side didn't really want to go to court, but yes, it seems that the original document (the agreement for financial compensation) was given to the Dominion Post by someone known to her. Woman's Day and possibly others had the same document in hand when the story broke.
But what we're seeing now goes beyond tit-for-tat: it's a very methodical working of the media on matters that are now sub judice. I think it really has to stop.
-
Clearly someone on team Dunne-Powell leaked the initial allegations
Well, Dylan, I don't think we should be assuming that at all. A time-honoured (if extremely risky) strategy is to 'front foot' an ugly story, in the hope that however bad it is you at least have it breaking on your timetable.
Of course, I hate no more idea that my scenario is any more correct than yours. Which is the problem with stories whose primary (or even only) source is A.N. Onymous.
-
But what we're seeing now goes beyond tit-for-tat: it's a very methodical working of the media on matters that are now sub judice. I think it really has to stop.
Certainly does, because it now seems that Veitch and his proxies are beginning to lay the ground work for arguing that he can't get a fair trial, and (if my memory serves) alleging that the Police leaked their own summary to the media.
I don't know about anyone else (and perhaps Legal Beagle can tell this law-tard where things stand) but wouldn't that seriously undermine the Crown's case? If you wanted to be really cynical, you've got to ask cui bono?
-
Well word I hear is that the whole thing was fairly public knowledge in some circles anyway.
Yeah, there's a good chance that Dunne-Powell had nothing directly to do with the leak, but from the way it played out and some of the inital hyperbole I think we can safely assume that it originated from someone who knew her side of the story.
I'm going to start taking signatures for a referendum to make it legal to give your woman a few corrective kicks in the back/legs when it's necessary in the course of being a good husband/partner.
-
I'm going to start taking signatures for a referendum to make it legal to give your woman a few corrective kicks in the back/legs when it's necessary in the course of being a good husband/partner.
You mean for those have multiple thousands for partner payouts? You mean for the poor..?!
-
Woman's Day and possibly others had the same document in hand when the story broke.
I remember seeing in the Herald on Sunday, the day before the Monday the story broke, a blind item in the gossip pages about a celebrity who'd paid off an ex-lover he'd assaulted.
-
Anyway, I think it's fair to discuss media tactics, but we should steer clear of the actual charges and associated claims which are to come before the court.
-
I have a theory that it was none other than Peter Williams who was responsible for the original leak to the Dom Post. There always seemed to be the faintest hint of a self-satisfied smirk playing across his face whenever he was on screen at the Games....
-
Should be a quick trial.
Everyone in the jury will be totally familiar with the evidence.
-
Should be a quick trial.
Everyone in the jury will be totally familiar with the evidence.
Alleged evidence...
-
Veitch has said (and we all know) there is two sides to every story, and I think until recently we only heard one (and even then we've only heard one really, Veitch hasn't and can't put across his side of what happened).
Veitch has had his big public apology and various proxies have popped up to heap scorn on his ex and testify to his character. If we're weighing who has had the most chance to put their side in public, I'd say he's by far had the better of it.
-
Anyway, I think it's fair to discuss media tactics, but we should steer clear of the actual charges and associated claims which are to come before the court.
Too true but that area of media credibility/integrity was the intent of some in previous posts a week or so ago. Generally it seemed that those issues were sidestepped then. What is the legitimate role of the media in exposing social ills from unverifiable sources?
-
What is the legitimate role of the media in exposing social ills from unverifiable sources?
Making quite a bit of money for the shareholders?
-
I think we hit on the possibility of an alleged offender leaking details to do the whole unfair publicity prejudicing the trial thing back during the Urewera Terrorism thread didnt we?
If you did such a thing, and were then found out.... you'd get done for perverting the course of justice, or contempt of court wouldnt you?
I'd really really hope that the penalties for such would be made to be at least as bad as what you're trying to get off?
-
What is the legitimate role of the media in exposing social ills from unverifiable sources?
Well, I think there's a larger question that deserves to be asked -- whenever a newspaper editor (not looking at any three in particular) say that they published "in the public interest" then it's worth asking exactly what that means. I suspect a candid answer wouldn't be particularly flattering to anyone.
-
From what I saw in the supermarket queue yesterday, there is still a lot of public interest about this. Not justifying it, but it’s there.
And RB; thanks for the pwned link. I still don’t get the pronunciation tip though.
-
Wonder when a judge is going to get annoyed enough to charge a conniving legal/pr team for this type of public manipulation on behalf of their client? Or a media outlet for helping them do it?
-
Sacha:
Wonder when a judge is going to get annoyed enough to charge a conniving legal/pr team for this type of public manipulation on behalf of their client? Or a media outlet for helping them do it?
Have you always thought this or just today?
-
Wonder when a judge is going to get annoyed enough to charge a conniving legal/pr team for this type of public manipulation on behalf of their client? Or a media outlet for helping them do it?
Yes, yes, yes. The best part would be when the prosecution demanded Discovery - the right to see all the defendant's documents relating to the case. Then we might learn somethign of how the PR people and the media people connive to spin these stories.
-
any thoughts on this...?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528866
-
Russel:
But what we're seeing now goes beyond tit-for-tat: it's a very methodical working of the media on matters that are now sub judice. I think it really has to stop.
and Craig:
alleging that the Police leaked their own summary to the media.
I don't know about anyone else (and perhaps Legal Beagle can tell this law-tard where things stand) but wouldn't that seriously undermine the Crown's case?
A little short of time :-), but I might direct you to this piece from Steven Price. It begins:
Some defence lawyers have been getting their knickers in a knot about reporting on the Veitch case in yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times and Herald on Sunday.
Can’t say I share their concerns. Certainly, now that charges have been laid, publishing material that tends to create a real risk of prejudice to Veitch’s trial will be a contempt of court. But there doesn’t seem to be much in these stories to create such a risk.
They essentially summarise the police allegations. It looks like they came from the police summary of facts. The papers reported them as allegations. They note that Veitch denies them. They don’t get into assessing the evidence. They have reported no more than is almost certain to come out in depositions. Any trial is a good long way away, so any possible effect on jurors is almost sure to dissipate....
I think the sub judice rule - not unlike the Privacy Act - often takes on the shades of meaning of those - in this case defence lawyers - who want it to mean something helpful to them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.