George Pell Convicted - Coverage Discussion


#26

If I remember correctly, The Project was trying to break the story in December but was stopped by the suppression order?
I found the original post:


#27

Everyone was stopped by suppression. The Project, right or wrong, was simply grandstanding.


#28

Will be interesting to see who the Catholic Church trots out to control this damage. They have serious questions to answer and this story is far from over.


#30

Sorry. Didn’t realise it was for only coverage


#31

Others reported the story in the same way, at the time.

10829514-3x2-460x307


#33

Yeah perhaps I wasn’t clear. It wasn’t just The Project and it was easy to draw the dots with the coverage.


#35

The 30-minute bulletin switched to ‘other news’ after the first ad break at about 12.15pm.

Ann concluded the midday bulletin. Seven’s rolling coverage has finished.


#36

And then overseas websites started reporting it because they weren’t restricted by the suppression order.


#37


#38

received_363412177766688


#40


#41

Studio 10 rolling coverage finished at 1pm.


#42

Mike Amor has been doing lots of rolling coverage in Australia since leaving America. He is likely groomed to succeed Mitchell


#43


#44

4 Corners next Monday.


#45


#46

Special one hour edition of The Latest starting at 10pm tonight.


#47

Great to see Mike Amor utilised lots by Seven. I take it he’s on standby during the day for a few eeekdays anyway (as he also presents Afternoon News in Melbourne as well as weekends), in the same way Nick Etchells, Jacquie Felgate, Nick McCallum, Blake Johnson have in recent years, as a back-up to Sydney if required from BCM.


#48


#49

All the publications which referenced the Pell case, even obliquely, were targeted because there was a blanket suppression on any information about the case, including that there was a suppression order.

Does it mean overseas media outlets (which first reported of the verdict back in December) will not be prosecuted over the breach?
On surface, to be even unable to mention such a suppression order existed during Pell’s tribunal was unfair. It showed the courts were out of touch in the digital age. As a minimum, the public should have been told of a suppression order. Then there would not have been such speculation when the verdict was first handed down.
Perhaps it’s worth discussion in another topic?