Channel 7 - have your say

[kmah8]

Channel 7 apology

Just heard Channel 7 is going to give an apology about the drugs story, and that DYlan Howard the reporter has been de-registered form the journos accreditation. Only caught the end of the story so if any one can fill us on the developments would be great.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

Re: Channel 7 apology

If they are truely sorry they will sack whoever was responsible

They aren't truely sorry though. Seven's been doing this **** for years. Not just in footy, but other stuff like publishing the names of minors who were victims of crime.

People always complain about Nein but Seven are the really scummy ones.

 

[djlowz]

Re: Channel 7 apology

It's a shame really, 7 is my 3rd favourite number.

 

[lyall]

Re: Channel 7 apology

that DYlan Howard the reporter has been de-registered form the journos accreditation.

Not really sure if that sounds right

 

[jules101]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Sack the guy in charge of the news not the reporter, what a joke... Thats like sacking an assistant coach when a team has a dud year not the coach

 

[Lidge]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Sack the guy in charge of the news not the reporter, what a joke... Thats like sacking an assistant coach when a team has a dud year not the coach

Agreed. The news chief sends the young reporter out on an assignment and with a deadline to get the story in the can.

 

[BWST]

Re: Channel 7 apology

It's how they obtained that information that counts. They spout it out as if it's their god given right.

7 are crooker than the crooks in obtaining confidential medical records. Bottom line.

 

[rizzo]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Agreed. The news chief sends the young reporter out on an assignment and with a deadline to get the story in the can.

I think you will find Dylan is more then just a reporter. Pretty sure he is high up at 7 sport.

 

[starkravenmad2]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Just heard Channel 7 is going to give an apology about the drugs story, and that DYlan Howard the reporter has been de-registered form the journos accreditation. Only caught the end of the story so if any one can fill us on the developments would be great.

Hope 7 holds their nerve and tells players and AFL to go forth and multiply
BTW I'm sure the clubs contracts with the AFL would require clubs to present players for interviews etc so maybe & could withhold money to those clubs that don't comply

 

[BomberGal]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Yeah, sack the journo...that's Ch7 really taking some responsibility there.

 

[Ari]

Re: Channel 7 apology

If Dylan is JUST reporter then there's no way he should be canned. The decision to run the story would not have been his, it would be channel 7's. They would have weighed up the risks and consequences and decided they were acceptable. They may have got it wrong.

 

[Linda Crescent]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Crikey:- The AFL drug scandal: no public interest and no ethics
DATE: TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2007
Denis Muller* writes:

In the absence of any evidence to show there was a public interest in publishing the medical records of two AFL players, it appears that Channel Seven and its reporter Dylan Howard are in breach of both the television industry’s code of practice and the code of ethics of the journalism profession.

Paragraph 4.3.5 of the industry code says that licensees must not use material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs, or which invades an individual’s privacy, other than where there is an identifiable public interest in broadcasting the material.

Clause 11 of the profession’s code of ethics says that journalists must respect private grief and personal privacy.

Medical records are about as private as it gets, except for intimate personal correspondence. It follows that the publishing of them must serve an equivalently strong public interest.

On what we know at the moment, there is no public interest at all in the publication of this material, and Channel Seven has not argued so far that there is. Perhaps an argument will emerge when the matter comes before the Victorian Supreme Court again, probably on Thursday.

On Friday the court issued an injunction restraining further publication. The reasons have not been published yet.

Gross though it appears to be, the breach of privacy is only one of the ethical issues raised by the conduct of Channel Seven and Dylan Howard in this matter.

Another concerns the channel’s decision to pay a reported $3000 for the information, and the steps it took prior to publication to verify the legitimacy of the means by which it had been obtained, and its authenticity.

Paying for information –so-called chequebook journalism – raises many ethical questions, including why the informant wants payment in the first place, how reliable it might be, and whether the fact that it was purchased should be disclosed to the audience.

We are not going to get answers to these questions any time soon because two people have now been charged with theft in relation to medical documents reported stolen from a rehabilitation centre.

Dylan Howard has been quoted as saying he took at face value the claim of his source that she had found the documents in a gutter outside a medical clinic in Ivanhoe, a north-eastern suburb of Melbourne. This indicates that little was done to verify the legitimacy or authenticity of the material.

Channel Seven was asked to provide for use in this article its editorial policies concerning paying for information, verifying the legitimacy of the means by which it had been obtained, and authenticating its contents prior to publication.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, which has ultimate responsibility for holding television licensees to account for breaches of the industry code, was also asked whether it was investigating the case.

At the time of publication, neither had responded. Any responses will be added as soon as possible after they are received.

*Dr Muller is a Visiting Fellow in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

 

[Power King]

Re: Channel 7 apology

am i the only one finding it funny that the afl players are telling an entire channel to basically **** themselves, and putting this into action?

and fair enough for the aflpa

 

[apollo_creed]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I really couldn't give a ****.

The players should be named and shamed imo.

They've disgraced the AFL brand.

 

[Biggie]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I really couldn't give a ****.

The players should be named and shamed imo.

They've disgraced the AFL brand.

What he said.

Even if half my squad is missing!

 

[lazy]

Re: Channel 7 apology

While they are at it could they also apoligize for making us listen to OX? I think that needs an apology.

 

[macdaddio]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I really couldn't give a ****.

The players should be named and shamed imo.

They've disgraced the AFL brand.

they already were named and shamed but the injunction stop it from goin further, so whats your point?


no one knows what other clubs were on those documents and there is more than 1 melbourne base football club...

just becuase they named 1 club, they never got a chance to name others...

so if you want to name and shame be ready to be ashamed...

 

[Linda Crescent]

Re: Channel 7 apology

am i the only one finding it funny that the afl players are telling an entire channel to basically **** themselves, and putting this into action?

and fair enough for the aflpa

"finding it funny" well it isn't funny. Is it some other emotion you're affected with?

 

[clobba]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I really couldn't give a ****.

The players should be named and shamed imo.

They've disgraced the AFL brand.

thank god you and your ilk appear to be in the minority then, sort of suprised actually as I thought after all the terror legislation and years of Howard there wouldnt have been much of a fuss raised about privacy and the rights of the individual.

 

[greennick]

Re: Channel 7 apology

It's a shame really, 7 is my 3rd favourite number.

7 is one of my most hated numbers.

Don't mind the channel though. Although, when it comes down to it, they are all crap and Foxtel shits on them.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Oh my F***kin God.

THAT'S channel seven's counter punch?

Sack the scapegoat that hold the most junior position in the company despite the fact that the story would have had to be signed off by one or more senior people before going to air!!!!!!

That is so weak!

They've ruined a couple of players reputations and take it out on some first floor shmuck.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I really couldn't give a ****.

The players should be named and shamed imo.

They've disgraced the AFL brand.

Th AFL brand was only "disgraced" the moment Channel 7 decided to run with a story that was both questionable ethically and illegal in the methods used to obtain the information required. Furthermore, Channel 7 failed to exercise due diligence with regard to investigating how the materials required for their story came to be in the hands of somebody that was patently not entitled to those materials. The fact that Channel 7 also went down the immoral road of paying for these leaked medical documents and disregard the basic civil liberties of those mentioned in them only serves to amplify their wrongdoing.

Without the above happening, the AFL brand is not tarnished as there is no story. Only an ignorant fool would argue to the contrary.

 

[Eagle1/Syd]

Re: Channel 7 apology

Sack the entire club.Bloody disgrace the lot of them :- )

 

[FuManchu]

Re: Channel 7 apology

This is a far bigger issue than any use of drugs in football. This is a blatant abuse of people's right to privacy. Name any drug use within the AFL and this outweighs it tenfold in terms of scandal.

The person who allowed it to air in the first place should be sacked and branded umemployable.

 

[Mighty Reds]

Re: Channel 7 apology

I don't know what the big surprise is, gutter journalism has been alive and well for along time. They have to fill airtime and newspapers somehow.