News Corp Australia


#221

The reports of something occurring in Vauxhall were established pretty quickly to be unrelated - in fact the London Underground declared Vauxhall station reopened many hours before the PM made any statement.

More to the point, reports of something occurring in Vauxhall (note: we did not have verified facts at the time as to what had happened, in contrast to what had occurred on London Bridge and Borough Market), which turned out to be unrelated, does not mean the other “incidents”, as you put them, were not terrorism…


#222

Not sure why you keep bringing this up. Days ago it was shown that the ABC was not slow in its reporting and was the equal of other media providers such as Seven , Nine, Sky News, CNN and BBC none of which reported any differently than the ABC. The Australian story has been proved false.


#223

Flogging a dead horse.


#224

I don’t know, maybe just me, but I think The Australian is perfectly entitled to question how the Australian broadcaster communicates with Australians, regardless of what CNN or Kerry Stoke’s Seven does.

I think the only ones flogging a dead horse are the ones wanting to smear The Australian as being “false” here.


#225

Even The Australian acknowledged that “media outlets try to avoid the use of the term “terrorist” without attribution”

But The Australian says: "The ABC waited until 10.13am to send an alert with confirmation of the news, and did not update its Twitter account until 10.43am

The ABC responded, with screen shots: “As soon as it was described as a terror attack by Prime Minister Theresa May it was reported online, at 9:47am. When the Metropolitan Police confirmed that description in a tweet we reported it five minutes later at 9:56am.”

ABC also responded that its news channel updated it reporting and captions accordingly: "At 9:53am the news channel also broadcast the Metropolitan Police tweet saying they were being treated as “terrorist incidents” — three minutes after the tweet was posted. At 9:55am the news channel changed its strap headline from “London incidents” to “London attacks”.


#226

Well in that case the ABC is entitled to post evidence to the contrary. The Australian’s stated timings are weirdly specific - what are they actually referring to?

While that information from the ABC backs up its current policy on reporting terrorism, it is clear to me that the policy is wrong in the first place and needs amendment. When verified facts point to an act of terrorism, then it is up to news organisations to report that truthfully and to their full extent - and not use political propganda weasel words.


#227

How is “propaganda”?

The attacks were referred to as terrorist attacks after it was confirmed. There’s no weaseling, just paranoia on your part.


#228

We’re going around in circles.

You think it should be called an incident, rather than a terrorist attack, until Theresa May says the word terrorism.

I think it should be called a terrorist attack, once the facts are verified, and not merely an incident.

I’d say 99% of Australians would agree with me. Unfortunately, the 1% of Australians involved in the media these days (usually drop outs and technical college graduates) fail to apply any critical thinking as to what sort of confirmation they actually need in each individual case to accurately report to their viewers.


#229

You’re being intentionally dense and I love it.

Inflammatory nonsense and a juicy logical fallacy thrown in for good measure. Most news organisations are being critical of eyewitness accounts because there’s a proven tendency for people to get the facts extremely wrong in the first hour of coverage. Go watch some 9/11 coverage or coverage of any modern terror attack.


#230

Hmm. You’re being dense now. We did not simply have “eyewitness accounts” until the time Theresa May said it was terrorism. Why be dishonest?

As for that link - please keep viruses away from this site. We don’t need childish websites masquerading as proof of argument.


#231

Excellent example - the problem being the broadcasters were too cautious in describing what they were seeing and the likelihood of what had happened, preferring to focus on the fact this was simply an accident and the resulting vision looked at now is just ridiculous; strained and far-fetched.


#232

It’s an example because there were many eyewitness accounts (a bomb at the State Department, a third plane crashing into the towers) which were erroneous.

Almost every outlet (except Bryant Gumble on CBS) concluded it was terror after the second impact. Their relative disbelief was because a terror attack like that wasn’t a thing before 2001.

Anyways, we’re 60 comments into this discussion. I firmly think you’ve lost, so I’m going to leave it at that :slight_smile:


#233

You’re telling me I’m wrong because of 9/11 tin-foil hat theories. If anyone has lost, it’s definitely you. :joy:

In any case, the only people losing out are news consumers who actually expect words to accurately describe what they’re seeing unfold.

Well, considering London witnessed a terror attack just two months before in which a vehicle mowed down pedestrians on a bridge, there was no need for disbelief here. And certainly not after the occupants jumped out of the vehicle and started hacking at people…

Thanks for the discussion.


#234

Excuse me? What was tinfoil? I only noted that there was significant confusion in the first hours of 9/11, with lots of inaccurate reporting, which has quite rightly informed news organisations to take a more nuanced approach to breaking news.

I resent you trying to depict me as a conspiracy theorist (I accept the official narrative), and I want an apology.


#236

Wrap it up there folks.


#238

A post was merged into an existing topic: General News Events


#239

Fantastic journalism as always from Courier


#240

Wow - what a way to trivialise two tragic events for the sake of a Facebook post. Disgraceful really.


#242

It also appeared in the NZ Herald.


#243

Former Sunrise EP Adam Boland has quit as NewsDNA (Digital Networks Australia) head of video after just nine months. Mumbrella reports he left the company to join his partner in Canberra, who had relocated for work. Boland is now the head of digital video of the newly formed Media Holding Group.