Madang185 wrote:Bigrich has got it right we have the right to know the whole story. The writer is well aware of the situation having lived for 6 years in a country with a controlled media.The word missing from the journalists is RESPONSIBILITY.
As another example do you know just how many firearm license holders there are within Australia? Have you ever seen such a figure mentioned in the media?
If the media knows I suggest they will not publish the figures because it proves that we, the licensed firearm owners are not the problem.
Madang185 wrote:The current campaign by the collective media within Australia is in need of comment. It is suggested that the public's right to know is really the public's right to know what the media want us to know, nothing more and nothing less.
A couple of example will suffice.
A boiler on an Australian Navy ship exploded at sea, there were two deaths. Following there were two Courts of Enquiry and two separate Inquests.Thirty five citizens are slain by a crazed gun man at Port Arthur in Tasmania and not a single inquest. Did the media complain, no they did not. The question I suggest has to be asked, why did they not even comment that an Inquest was lacking? Or for that matter where was the legal profession?
During the "Pilots Dispute" of 1989 is was alleged by the CEO of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, that the Pilots were guilty of malpractice in relation to their Superannuation Funds. Interesting since the funds were totally uider the control, of Ansett management. Did the media question this statement-no they did not.
I am sure there are plently of other examples.
Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.
Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now
mikejay wrote:Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.
Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now
Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.
bigrich wrote:Madang185 wrote:Bigrich has got it right we have the right to know the whole story. The writer is well aware of the situation having lived for 6 years in a country with a controlled media.The word missing from the journalists is RESPONSIBILITY.
As another example do you know just how many firearm license holders there are within Australia? Have you ever seen such a figure mentioned in the media?
If the media knows I suggest they will not publish the figures because it proves that we, the licensed firearm owners are not the problem.
Yes, accountability and responsibility are missing from the media. A post on this forum mentions a speech waleed ally from the project made at a university or something, about how there was no such accountability for the media. If the OP of that reads this can you refresh our memories please
TassieTiger wrote:mikejay wrote:Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.
Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now
Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.
Example? Ed Snowden was a whistleblower but had to break the law to let everyone know wtf was going on - when you work for the govt you legally cannot speak out about the govt - it’s generally in your NDA or PD or internal policy.
mikejay wrote:TassieTiger wrote:mikejay wrote:Ziad wrote:I think it's a good idea... yes the media will choose the items they think interest most people. But i dino if you have noticed but inner the guise of terrorism a lot of invasive laws have been passed... including no protection in the law of whistleblowers... so the chances are that many things we should know... will not be reported anymore.
Most of what you complaining was 20+ years ago mate... probably be different now
Protecting whistlebowers from what though? Protection from being prosecuted if they've broken criminal law? No, no one should get that. If they've broken civil law... I guess it would depend and be treated on a case by case basis, but again no, no blanket protection is warranted or justifiable.
Example? Ed Snowden was a whistleblower but had to break the law to let everyone know wtf was going on - when you work for the govt you legally cannot speak out about the govt - it’s generally in your NDA or PD or internal policy.
As a government employee you are not banned from from speaking out about the government in the slightest, what you can't do it steal and then distribute government documents, you can't discuss specific topics covered by your employment contract using details and or names, you can however talk about and criticize your work and or the government in general as much as you like.
If what you're saying is even partially true, pollies would all be locked up come election time as they bitch about each other and the opposing parties.
Snowden isn't on the run because he spoke out, he's on the run for, receiving stolen property, redistributing/publishing the proceeds of theft, publishing details and names of event covered by national security.