Ch 7 vs drug users

[NMWBloods]

If you come into information relating to any illegal activity, you are obligated to alert the authorities.

Which is not Channel Seven!

I agree that that should mean that information should be given to the police, however, it is entirely up to the individual how they wish to alert the authority.

No it's not.

We have seen many examples of such situations where members of the public have video'd illegal activities i.e drug deals in the suburbs, and taken / sold that footage straight to ACA or another network. The network then forwards that footage over to the police for investigation after they air it on their program. In this circumstance, a member of public allegedly found documents in the gutter relating to individuals taking illegal substances. There is no member of public / client privilege to protect individuals from being identified.

At this stage, it appears that the documents were stolen and then sold to Ch7 for a profit, who then broadcast the information for scandalous benefit. No argument of 'public good' or 'informing the authorities' stands up.

I put it to you that Ben Cousins father admitted that Ben was addicted to drugs and that he was seeking rehabilitation in the USA. What were your thoughts of Craig Hutchison following him all over the place while he was being rehabilitated? Bit strange for C9 personalities throwing stones at C7 I would have thought....

I think that is too much. However, that is still not the same as stealing medical records and having them published.

[Chow-Chicker]

Which is not Channel Seven!

No it's not.

At this stage, it appears that the documents were stolen and then sold to Ch7 for a profit, who then broadcast the information for scandalous benefit. No argument of 'public good' or 'informing the authorities' stands up.

I think that is too much. However, that is still not the same as stealing medical records and having them published.

You are assuming they were stolen. That is yet to be proven. You may disagree with the fact that any individual has the right to alert the authorities any way they see fit, but there is no law preventing you or anyone else giving that information to the media prior to the authorities. If there is, what is the law you are referring to? Defamation? Not in this case. The person's name is on a record that states he/she has taken illegal substances. That is a fact.

[NMWBloods]

You are assuming they were stolen. That is yet to be proven.

Yes I am assuming it, based on the case that they have been charged and that the documents were clean - not dirty like you'd expect them to be if found in the gutter.

You may disagree with the fact that any individual has the right to alert the authorities any way they see fit, but there is no law preventing you or anyone else giving that information to the media prior to the authorities. If there is, what is the law you are referring to? Defamation? Not in this case. The person's name is on a record that states he/she has taken illegal substances. That is a fact.

I am referring to journalism ethics.

There is no reason to support what Ch 7 did except:

- schadenfreude - people are enjoying other clubs/players being lambasted
- gutter tabloid journalism - people's preference for scandal over quality journalism

[Chow-Chicker]

Yes I am assuming it, based on the case that they have been charged and that the documents were clean - not dirty like you'd expect them to be if found in the gutter.

I am referring to journalism ethics.

There is no reason to support what Ch 7 did except:

- schadenfreude - people are enjoying other clubs/players being lambasted
- gutter tabloid journalism - people's preference for scandal over quality journalism

Journalism ethics have always been in the gutter, where they supposedly found the documents. They are there to report news. They have no conscience or morals when it comes to announcing sensitive information about anyone. As long as they believe they are acting within the law, they couldn't care less about the embarrassment it may cause the individual. While their approach may sicken most people, where is the condemnation of those taking illegal drugs?

[NMWBloods]

While people continue to accept gutter journalism, it will remain and get worse.

Condemning the journalism involved does not mean that drug users are not being condemned - they are not mutually exclusive decisions.

The players involved are said to be already in rehabilitation. What good comes of naming them?

[robbieando]

No - it's a court record. That is a matter of public record. Medical records taken from a medical office are not a matter of public record.

Smack bang on the money. BAC Level's get reported and people/players named because it is on public record, therefore the media has EVERY right to report on the matter. Seven last week had NO right to report ANY information gained from the medical record they gained (found or stolen) because the medical record aren't on public record.

What will be interesting will be when Seven get sued by Michael Braun over their naming him as the the player Aker claimed he believed was on Drugs. It is possible they will ask for all his Drug Testing Results to be put on the Public Record and most likely his Medical Record as well to defend against his claim.

Is it any surprise therefore the AFL, the AFLPA and the Eagles aren't joining Braun in sueing Seven. Because what Seven could ask to have put on the public record could be far reaching and explosive to boot. Therefore I'm thinking Braun at the very least has nothing to hide if he has to open everything up to the courts and therefore public record and will most likely win a case against Seven (otherwise why sue in the first place).

I have no doubt Seven are trying to get the AFL and the AFLPA to sue them in particular so they can get the info they want on the public record, so they and the rest of the media don't have to undertake all these shady deals with people off the street. They rather access the public record, like they would with BAC's. Problem for them is, this would be a one off and the AFL/AFLPA know the players would just walk away from drug testing full stop if this is how the media is going to act to find out results of the tests.

Seven's method might not work (I'm sure someone will tell me one way of the other), but I'm sure Seven aren't doing this for no reason. At least for the time being the AFL and the AFLPA aren't biting and heading to court to sue them. Doing what they are doing at the moment hurts Seven more and doesn't give them (and the rest of the media) what they want.

[Sanecow]

I would have preferred it if Seven had used hidden cameras to film the players entering and leaving the clinic. No ethical problems with filming players in a public place.

[Chow-Chicker]

I would have preferred it if Seven had used hidden cameras to film the players entering and leaving the clinic. No ethical problems with filming players in a public place.

Quite right.

[robbieando]

I would have preferred it if Seven had used hidden cameras to film the players entering and leaving the clinic. No ethical problems with filming players in a public place.

I'm guessing Seven aren't that smart

[Claret]

Seven apologises

[goswannie14]

Seven apologises

The link doesn't work, but this one gives some details about 7's Claytons "apology".

Seven backs down on drugs story.

Interesting to note

"The Seven Network values the co-operation it receives from AFL players and sincerely regrets any damage which has been caused to our relationship with the players by virtue of a story which was aired on Friday, 24th August," the statement said.

They never actually apologise.

[Layby]

I'm guessing Seven aren't that smart

hehe

[AnnieH]

I like to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire.

Anyhew ... Peter Meakin was interviewed on Media Watch last night. Did anyone else catch it? It was interesting.

He said that they were never going to release the names of the players involved. He said that drugs are rife in AFL and that basically, they will try and do all they can to bring it to the publics attention and make the AFL act to eradicate it. You can probably get a transcript off the ABC site.

The person who sold the documents has been charged with "theft by finding" (???? = WTF?? is that a funny Victorian law or something?).

[NMWBloods]

I like to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire.

Good example of how nasty rumours get spread!

[AnnieH]

Good example of how nasty rumours get spread!

That's the good thing about those old sayings, they become old sayings for a reason.

There IS smoke - so there's definately a fire.