If you’re going to be a credible broadcaster, who holds others accountable for their actions, you can’t put yourself in a position where you can have your own credibility questioned.
This goes for a number of areas - police who enforce laws can not be breaking laws themselves, judges who enforce judgement on legal proceedings can’t be seen accepting external influences for their verdicts, politicians should do best by the people they represent and not buy the companies putting the $$$ in their pockets - we know all this happens, but we call this conduct corruption.
Look at the number of journalists, especially those on the commercial networks, who align themselves to causes (good or bad) and/or sponsorship plugs - instantly their credibility is damaged and their impartiality is questionable.
Above reproach simply means they need to hold themselves aligned to the values they preach and not put themselves in a position where rumours or speculation to the contrary can have any possibility.
I now see what you meant, the message I got from your previous post was that others should not be able to criticise the ABC.
Yes, people in any organisation or from any group need to realise their own behaviours and actions have impact to those around them, often leading to what some call stereotyping or generalising, but it is human nature to simplify what they see and hear, particularly when the same patterns present again and again and again.
As for rumours, unfortunately they will always exist whether true or untrue, for reasons including false assumptions, conflict and jealousy. Problem is these days most people react on rumours or accusations without any initial clear thought, what could also be call stereotyping.
Paul Barry has told The Australian’s Media Diary that he has signed a fresh one year deal with the ABC to continue to host Media Watch. That means he will have hosted the show for a decade in July 2023, surpassing Stuart Littlemore for the longest unbroken stint.
This sounds like something straight out of Sophie Elsworth’s mouth.
Lisa wasn’t the only one who were involved in coverage of all this. Plenty of others were covering this (including Sky journalists).
Yet it’s clear for all to see that News Corp feeds on Lisa (and Peter Fitzsimmons) because she is a woman whose husbands works at the other end of the political spectrum and she is progressive. If she was neither then would News Corpse be targeting her relentlessly? No way.
On the contrary, if it was someone on Sky News that said what Lisa said or did, then they’d be defending them left right and centre.
We can see you edit and yes, you made a false and potentially libelous claim based purely on your political leanings. Higgins don’t forget is from your side too, why not support her?
You may be surprised to learn that lawyers for the defence don’t decide who is in contempt of court.