When will the media be actually held to account over reported stories that are factually inaccurate?

[Cool Kangas]

Where is the accountability? Just cos they're in the media doesn't mean that they should be allowed to make assumptions and then just say whatever they want without checking facts. I genuinely don't get how there's never any accountability for inaccurate stories.

 

[g_TRAIN]

No, no they won't

But they should be.

 

[TheUnicorn]

Never. Close thread.

 

[Some Idiot]

The media should have to provide public incident reports for all instances of reporting fabricated stories without fact checking. Journalists who haven't done due diligence should face a review and potential sacking.

 

[Rotayjay]

When pigs fly.

 

[Kwality]

The media should have to provide public incident reports for all instances of reporting fabricated stories without fact checking. Journalists who haven't done due diligence should face a review and potential sacking.

& today we have last Fridays breaking news ....

 

[Engimal v3]

As soon as the immenent announcement of Clarko choosing Essendon over North like we heard 100 times

 

[Rabish Binney]

They never will.

All they need to do is use Caro's well worn get out clause:-

"a source close to the club has told me"

 

[sataris]

They are sports reporters not UN weapons inspectors.

 

[Saab NLAW]

The art of journalism in Australia died many years ago, now it's just opinion's and click bait rubbish.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Around the same time as everyone else behaves in a perfect and highly responsible manner.

Approximately on the 12th of Never.

 

[The Punter]

What does accountability look like?

Media is a product - if you don't like it, consume a different product.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Whenever someone takes them to task, it's jo longer theor opinion, it's "sources" or "people"

 

[Lsta062]

What does accountability look like?

Media is a product - if you don't like it, consume a different product.

It’s less to do with us as consumers and more about the factually incorrect information they spread about the parties involved. Those parties have no choice in the matter.

Accountability looks like trying to spread the correct information where the incorrect information reached. I haven’t seen media personnel do that very often.

 

[Tonga Bob]

 

[Kwality]

They are sports reporters not UN weapons inspectors.

Roger that, sports reporters too often talking about other sports reporters, of whom there are too many.

 

[The Punter]

It’s less to do with us as consumers and more about the factually incorrect information they spread about the parties involved. Those parties have no choice in the matter.

Accountability looks like trying to spread the correct information where the incorrect information reached. I haven’t seen media personnel do that very often.

Nine have issued a statement. If they had the information well sourced (and it can still be wrong under these circumstances, just less likely to be wrong), then the journo should trust those sources less than they did previously.

If the information was not well sourced, then considering the embarrassment to Nine, they should act accordingly.

But even the best journos and the best publications will occasionally publish incorrect information. It's intrinsic to the nature of the profession, one which a lot of stuff gets printed based on verbal sources.

 

[The Hobo]

But even the best journos and the best publications will occasionally publish incorrect information. It's intrinsic to the nature of the profession, one which a lot of stuff gets printed based on verbal sources.

Agreed - but there is an expectation to have some level of fact checking prior to publication.

There's such a big push for being the first to break the news, that even the most rudimentary of checks are being skipped.

 

[Zevon]

Usually they are held accountable, we just rarely pick up on it. If a story is proven to be factually incorrect, typically a correction is required to be printed/broadcast. However, the correction is never (and will never) be given the same prominence as the incorrect story in the first place. It tends to be shunted to some random spot in the middle of the newspaper, or printed in small italics at the end of an online article, ie “an earlier version of this story incorrectly reported XYZ…”

So technically they are held accountable, but given how small the punishment usually is, there’s no real incentive to stop it happening again. Media outlets would rather be first and wrong, than last and correct.

The exception is when the error was serious enough that civil cases - ie defamation - are brought against the publisher by the aggrieved party. Media organisations are hit a little harder by these, but the individual journalists are typically indemnified from having to pay anything themselves (as far as I’m aware).

 

[Bostonian]

He should just fight her old school.

Talk smack about me, see ya behind the shed.

 

[Gavin Excell]

She has personally apologised to Cripps

 

[AndyLucimitis]

They never will.

All they need to do is use Caro's well worn get out clause:-

"a source close to the club has told me"

..or 'don't shoot the messenger'.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Caro lied, people died.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Australia has stupidly strict "defamation" laws, so they're quite often the subject of legal threats from people whose feelings they have hurt.

That aside, they just do what they do because people love it and consume it.

 

[melbun]

When will the media be actually held to account

About the same time as a solar flare wipes out all life on Earth.