Photo: Not quite as cute when humans do it.
Email from the ABC
31/12/2012 1:20 p.m
Predictably the regime has not responded to the allegations
Mr Crosbie Walsh,
I have listened to Bruce Hill’s interview that went to air on Pacific Beat and I have also read the transcript on Radio Australia’s website and nowhere in these items is the word predictably used.
Adding this word into your blog under the heading of ‘The Radio Australia Report’ is a misrepresentation of that report.
Please remove this error and in fairness you should also acknowledge the word predictably was not used by Bruce Hill.
Regards,
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.
Notice the sentence I have highlighted in bold. which I find ironic given that this is precisely what Prof Ghai did. The draft was intended, in law, only for the President, and ABC's Bruce Hill has assisted Prof Ghai in its dissemination.
My Reply
On 31/12/2012, at 1:40 PM, Croz Walsh wrote:
Wayne, Happy New Year.
I did not add "Predictably" but confess to having copied the interview from an anti-government blogsite. Checking back, I now see it was Coup4.5 or one of their sister blogs. You may care to take the matter up with them. The word was in the introduction to the interview.
I am quite happy, "in the interests of fairness", to make this correction if Bruce would also read what I had to say about the interview in two postings on this issue (to which neither he nor Campbell Cooney have made any reference) and explain why he did not take Prof Ghai up on the legal issues raised in my article. And further, why he and Campbell Cooney, do not address the questionable legality of Prof Ghai's action.
Please also see my http://david-helbich.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/fallout-from-draft-seizure-and-few-facts.html The red text clearly shows Prof Ghai knew he was acting illegally.
We may think the law unreasonable, as I said in the article, but not to mention it in the Hill interview was devious, to say the least. I would have thought ABC reports that do not mention this important element are equally devious,
Please get back to me on what ABC intends to do about what appears to me to be a breach of journalist ethics far more serious than my copying the word "predictable."
Kind regards,
Croz
Wayne, Happy New Year.
I did not add "Predictably" but confess to having copied the interview from an anti-government blogsite. Checking back, I now see it was Coup4.5 or one of their sister blogs. You may care to take the matter up with them. The word was in the introduction to the interview.
I am quite happy, "in the interests of fairness", to make this correction if Bruce would also read what I had to say about the interview in two postings on this issue (to which neither he nor Campbell Cooney have made any reference) and explain why he did not take Prof Ghai up on the legal issues raised in my article. And further, why he and Campbell Cooney, do not address the questionable legality of Prof Ghai's action.
Please also see my http://david-helbich.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/fallout-from-draft-seizure-and-few-facts.html The red text clearly shows Prof Ghai knew he was acting illegally.
We may think the law unreasonable, as I said in the article, but not to mention it in the Hill interview was devious, to say the least. I would have thought ABC reports that do not mention this important element are equally devious,
Please get back to me on what ABC intends to do about what appears to me to be a breach of journalist ethics far more serious than my copying the word "predictable."
Kind regards,
Croz
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar