Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


The Australian

Nov 30, 2010

What's missing from this picture?

Ok news hounds, what's missing from this picture?


Ok news hounds, what’s missing from this picture?

Search Results 1 - 4 of 4 for posetti

Have you figured it out yet?

Would you like a great big hint?

Audio backs tweets in editor's defamation row

How long do we think it will be before the Australian updates the story about its editor threatening to sue a critic, now that audio of the event that was being live-tweeted has been released? It’s interesting to compare how quickly the Australian seems to have lost interest in this story with the continuous commentary that it produced over the unmasking of Greg Jericho.

For background on the #twitdef issue take a look at Andrew Dodd’s piece for Crikey

And a quick reminder of how well the Australian ‘gets’ new media.

0 Search Results found for #twitdef

Elsewhere: Jonathan Holmes at the Drum and Tim Lambert at Deltoid

Update: As mentioned by Neil Walker in comments, the audio gets a post on Caroline Overington’s Media Diary. This still doesn’t explain why it doesn’t show up in the search, or as a related item on Sally Jackson’s article about Mitchell’s threatened legal action.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


25 thoughts on “What’s missing from this picture?

  1. quantize

    ‘without the same level of condescending smugness you’d get from the broadcast version. ‘

    Laughable coming from someone defending the Oz (a beacon of patronising stupid) by slagging off the ABC.

  2. surlysimon

    Here’s Mitchell’s Lawyers letter to Posetti


  3. Dom Ramone

    So that would be a fail on both counts.

  4. Upyasmum

    Dom, I like to think I enlighten and entertain.

    Mobius, Regarding me being wrong about the ABC – I’d bet dollars to Deeres that future governments will go cold on increased funding for the ABC. She be a thirsty girl already.

  5. confessions

    Andrew Elder on #twitdef in his usual visceral style. I esp love this para:

    [After Watergate, we know that any attempt to cover up can be worse than the crime itself, and so it is here. Jackson’s responses to tweets challenging her to respond to the Wahlquist audio are astonishingly inept for a social media expert. She won’t participate in a debate that she can’t frame. Criticism that addresses the issue is lumped in with ad-hominem attacks, so that any criticism of her article is a personal attack upon her. That’s why reasonable challenges are met with shrieks like “nasty”, “troll” etc. ]

    Jay Rosen’s tweets make a similar observation about Jackson’s alleged social media expertise, and that it looks like an attempt to shut down debate and criticism. The OO is a proponent in Australia’s Right To Know campaign. Surely that’s in jest?

  6. twobob

    This little hissy fit has done wonders for the Aus and Mitchell’s reputations.

    I would like to thank Mitchell for bringing this to the attention of so many people, and FWIW I am sure that Mitchell did not ‘personally’ pressure any journalist. I expect he was very careful to ensure that he did not do this and there is no document trail in any of murdochs enterprises suggesting that such a thing has occurred. And that is why Posetti’s twitter caused such an over reaction.
    It is all merely a coincidence that all of murdoch’s stable sing from the same hymn-book. A great big, massive coincidence that they all believe in a scientific conspiracy over and above what it is that 98% of climate scientist tell them.
    And thank god I live in a free country where freedom of expression is so cherished (provided it is carefully worded and expressed as non evident sarcasm, of course).

  7. Jay

    “Rather, I’ve just commented that there’s no point in upping the budget for ABC TV when the exact same content is already freely available on their website.”

    Well…no. Media Watch is on hiatus, hence no duplication.

  8. Dom Ramone

    So why do you bloody bother commenting here Upsyamum?

  9. heavylambs

    Fractious,Mitchell’s utter hypocrisy is on display when he complains he wasn’t contacted for his side of the story,while publishing factually incorrect crud like Burchell’s defamation of Phil Jones.

    The Oz continues on its blithering way with a ‘coaching Ted Baillieu’ piece from the IPA’s Des Moore,which advises us that the CSIRO gave ‘false advice’ to the Victorian government about regional rainfall trends.

    Chris Mitchell has lost it.

  10. confessions

    I’ve just searched out NYU journalism academic Jay Rosen’s twitter account after Holmes mentioned it in his column. Rosen has 45,000 followers across the world, which means the OO’s humiliation has gone global. 😆

  11. Mobius Ecko

    “I can’t help myself.”

    That’s your failing it seems.

    As to the off topic ABC funding remark, you’re wrong there as well, but I guess you think the tractor gag makes up for it you go on about it more than enough.

  12. Upyasmum

    Hi Mobius,

    When you say “article” are you referring to the JH piece or Dave’s post? Because, to be honest, neither help your case.

    I’ve not claimed to have a problem with JH or supported the Oz in any way. Rather, I’ve just commented that there’s no point in upping the budget for ABC TV when the exact same content is already freely available on their website. It’d be unnecessary duplication. I also made a hilarious crack about a tractor shed. But what tractor joke isn’t big laughs?

    As for Dave’s post, the specific topic became redundant after the first comment so the discussion developed. Unfortunately I can’t include your post in the development category for the abovementioned reasons. Have another go though. See if you can work a tractor gag in too. It’s a blast.

    You did correctly ping me on the quick chicken-wing I gave the ALP on the way through. I can’t help myself.

  13. Matthew of Canberra

    I had a thought last night. It’s unusual, but it happens.

    If, say, the employee of a very large organization sues somebody for, say, defamation … who pays the lawyers? Is this entirely a personal undertaking by the employee, or does the backing of their very large organization give them the added confidence of knowing that they can’t really lose?

    And if the very large organization DOES pay for the process, why would that not be considered a fringe benefit? And should it be declared and taxed as such?

    I mean – defamation is a personal reputation thing. A Very Large Organization (pty ltd) can’t be defamed. If somebody is BEING sued, then that would (I’m figuring) be covered by professional indemnity insurance. That makes sense. But suing somebody … that’s an elective undertaking, isn’t it?

    I’m adding this to my list of things to do if, by some freak of nature, I end up being AG one day.

  14. Mobius Ecko

    Upyasmum, “Quick look over there at Labor and the pinko ABC”, in an article that rightly highlights a monumental failure by The Australian.

    Just so predicable.

  15. Upyasmum

    Hi Jeremy, If you hit the link provided by Dave you’ll get an article written by Jonathon Holmes on the subject. It does almost exactly the same job as MediaWatch but, unfortunately, without the same level of condescending smugness you’d get from the broadcast version.

    The good news though is that the ABC won’t need to needlessly spend additional public money producing MediaWatch because it would just be duplicating its content. The taxpayer can rest assured that that money can be more properly used to clean up funky roof insulation, pissed up against a wall on the NBN or to build a tractor shed in a metropolitan school yard.

    (Tractor joke! LOL, eh? Consider me one of the gang).

  16. fractious

    From Dave’s OP :

    It’s interesting to compare how quickly the Australian seems to have lost interest in this story with the continuous commentary that it produced over the unmasking of Greg Jericho

    Also interesting is comparing Mitchell’s attacks on Posetti with David Burchell, who continues the Oz’s fine tradition of accepting the facts of climate change by defaming climate scientists.

  17. fractious

    Jeremy @7 “I’ll second that. ABC, increase the budget

    What???!? Increase the budget for a bunch of self-serving pinko commie eco-fascist swine? Have you no shame? I mean, what would Paul Sheehan think?

  18. Jeremy Sear

    “What a shame Media Watch doesn’t run all year round.”

    I’ll second that.

    ABC, increase the budget. It’s like a news program, and they don’t go on holidays.

  19. confessions

    The Holmes article is sobering, yet compulsory reading for anyone wanting to get the legal side of things. What a shame Media Watch doesn’t run all year round.

  20. Dave Gaukroger

    Thanks, we’re having a lot of fun doing it.

  21. Neil Walker

    p.s. and there it rests.

  22. Neil Walker

    Nae wurries. The whole #twitdef fiasco has been strange in so many ways.

    On a positive note, genuinely enjoying listening to the new Pure Poison podcasts. It’s good to hear a mostly light hearted approach to all the “intellectual dishonesty” floating around, a nuance that can sometimes be missed in writing.

    Highlight so far was the most amusing demolition of the “Why build the National Broadband Network when wireless will be good enough?” argument trotted out by opponents of the NBN. I LOL’d as I believe the kidz say.

  23. Dave Gaukroger

    Right you are. I still find it strange that Overington’s post doesn’t show up in the search, or as a related item on Sally Jackson’s article.

  24. Neil Walker

    Except they did. At 2.04pm today (30 November): http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php

    And there it rests.
    (I’m ending all my correspondence this way from now on)

https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/30/whats-missing-from-this-picture/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.