How Channel 7 protect themselves.

[Die Judicii]

I recently made an official complaint to Channel 7 with regard to the "Weekend Sunrise" broadcast on 24th April 2016, that contained a section
about the Adler shotgun.


Part of my complaint was about the poor manner in which I thought the hosts managed the discussion, which degenerated into a rabble of comments.

I also complained that in the early stages the co-host Andrew O'Keefe demonstrated his ignorance on the subject, by referring to the Adler as being
a "rapid fire rifle"

Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I got a written response from Channel 7 that to me was nothing but a cop out, and showed how the media stations seem to hide behind
selected parts of the code of practice.

I cannot show in any detail, anything the Channel had to say in their reply to me, for fear of being sued.

Now isn't that just dandy ?????????

[Chronos]

I'm assuming something along the lines of what people got when they wrote to "the project"


"The project is a light entertainment program and as such is not required to conform to the code of conduct for news and current affairs"

Call them "news done a little bit differently" stack the panel with comedians and commentators instead of journo's then say what they like

Chronos

[adam]

I cannot show in any detail, anything the Channel had to say in their reply to me, for fear of being sued.[/u]

Is there something in the letter that refers to that?

[Title_II]

Call a lawyer and sue them.

[Die Judicii]

I cannot show in any detail, anything the Channel had to say in their reply to me, for fear of being sued.[/u]

Is there something in the letter that refers to that?

Stamped very prominently across the top are the words,,,,,,,, NOT FOR PUBLICATION

[<<Genesis93>>]

I cannot show in any detail, anything the Channel had to say in their reply to me, for fear of being sued.[/u]

Is there something in the letter that refers to that?

Stamped very prominently across the top are the words,,,,,,,, NOT FOR PUBLICATION

so what!?

What if it stated "upon receipt you must jump on the spot 3 times" would you do it?
They sent the letter to you, you never stated total confidence in any information provided, did you? and YOU OWN the letter now...

Provided you dont identify anyone not in a public/commonly known role....in the words of a famous Greek philosopher (who wasnt really greek) ..... doesntmatter...

Print away, just censor names...

Though I'm sure it says something along the lines of "entertainment program, not necessarily factual / no obligation to provided facts / opinions expresses are not those of the network blah blah...

What it say, huh???

[on_one_wheel]

Just don't publish the " not for publication" bit

I recon it would be about as valid as someone writing " if you read this your gay "

If it was me I'd scan it and post the s**t out of it everywhere just because FU (K YOU CHANEL 7 !
like they follow any rules or code of conduct.

Now I want to write to them just so I can publish their" do not publsh letter" straight onto their own fb page.

[Oldbloke]

You write them a letter of complaint and they reply.
In my very humble view if you black out defamitary material, including names you can put it on a bill board across the local main street.
I would ignore the threat. Perhaps get a legal opinion.

[<<Genesis93>>]

You can't defame someone by printing their words as they wrote themselves . ....

[Die Judicii]

You write them a letter of complaint and they reply.
In my very humble view if you black out defamitary material, including names you can put it on a bill board across the local main street.
I would ignore the threat. Perhaps get a legal opinion.

All the same folks, I found myself in a similar situation some years ago,,, and it got very nasty very quickly.
Once bitten twice shy.

Methinks I'll get advice from SUQ on this one.

[Title_II]

I don't know the law or customs in Australia. If they tried that here, I'd post it and send it everywhere with a Youtube video of me slapping my dick on it.

[bluerob]

I think we should all write to channel 7 (in a polite manner) and see what happens.

Andrew O'Keefe is a qualified lawyer and his father was the Chief Justice, so, he'd know a little bit about the law.

I seriously doubt that Ch 7 would commence legal action against you (that's a fair bit of coin to spend) unless you make unsubstantiated, false and derogatory comments concerning an individual's professional and personal character that affects their commercial ability. That's how it used to be. I was once worked in this area.

When the mainstream media blatantly lies about us, they get away with it because they haven't destroyed any one individual's character, just the unidentified group, which our asssociations do sweet fanny adams about.....

[adam]

I understand the reservations, but confirming someone's question like Genesis:

Though I'm sure it says something along the lines of "entertainment program, not necessarily factual / no obligation to provided facts / opinions expresses are not those of the network blah blah...

.... by saying 'YES', 'NO', or 'CLOSE' couldn't be considered publicating what they said. I think you'd be pretty safe...


Then again.... I could imagine the court case now:

C7: Your honour, we had printed on the documentation "Not for publication" - and he publicised the letter on a forum:

Judge: What exactly was publisided:

C7: He said "Close" on a forum.

Judge: One word? And it's not even in the original documentation. How can you consider this as republishing a document?

C7: It is the way we spin it... we're good at spinning things you see... just watch our news shows...

Judge: Still, how do you propose to merge one word as a publication of your document?

C7: Well, he wrote it on......... "a gun forum".

GCA: <Chimes in yelling from the back of the room>..... and a rapid fire super high powered gun forum at that!

<gasps are heard from the gallery>

[Bazooker]

Hell, don't publish it; surely can't stop you from quoting excerpts in general conversation?

B.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Geeebus.... its bad enough that the police are making the rules re gun laws (yes. THEY call the shots, our elected reps just 'ink' it as they nod their collective heads in ill-advised agreement)

....but now the networks are calling the shots re free speech

If its worthy, post it fully onto faceache, to show the people they have the audacity to then demand you dont publish their crappy response...

PUBLISH IT
PUBLISH IT.... come on, all together..
PUBLISH IT

[Die Judicii]

Then again.... I could imagine the court case now:

C7: Your honour, we had printed on the documentation "Not for publication" - and he publicised the letter on a forum:

Judge: What exactly was publisided:

C7: He said "Close" on a forum.

Judge: One word? And it's not even in the original documentation. How can you consider this as republishing a document?

C7: It is the way we spin it... we're good at spinning things you see... just watch our news shows...

Judge: Still, how do you propose to merge one word as a publication of your document?

C7: Well, he wrote it on......... "a gun forum".

GCA: <Chimes in yelling from the back of the room>..... and a rapid fire super high powered gun forum at that!

<gasps are heard from the gallery>

Ah Hah Hah Hah,,,,,,,

Yer a funny bugger Adam

[anthillinside]

OK Don't publish it,
Just put all the words into a post in scrambled order.
Then we can all play scrabble post

[Rocker]

IMO don't.

Always ends up in a s**t storm for those involved.

People egging him on to do it, write them yourself and you publish it so you're responsible.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Ok. Post the exact text you sent... i'll send it as well.... then post the response

[sbd3927]

A different solution. Send them the questioning letter again... and present here also... as an open letter (from this forum perhaps, if the admins are agreeable, but an open letter anyhow) questioning them.

[p3seven]

With that letter in hand you can now complain about Ch7 to the Communications Ombusman (Google him).

But remember he is paid for by levies from the Media owners.

So, can you expect a fair hearing?

[Die Judicii]

IMO don't.

Always ends up in a s**t storm for those involved.

People egging him on to do it, write them yourself and you publish it so you're responsible.

[Die Judicii]

Settle down for Fxck sake you blokes.

I asked the Shooters Union Australia for advice on this matter.
They report that they are unable to provide a legal opinion, but suggested I make a formal complaint to the ACMA.

This would be concerning the manner in which my complaint to the seven network was dealt with; as well, to add a further complaint
in relation to the construed attempt to stifle or prevent me from having my right to freedom of speech.

I have done this, and lodged the complaint.

Now it is time for a little patience.

[AnotherMisfire]

You can't defame someone by printing their words as they wrote themselves . ....

Defamation law in Australia doesn't protect corporations

[AnotherMisfire]

If it's a response to a letter I can't see any straight forward reason you can't publish it.

Send it to me if you want and I'll have a look, I'm a legal researcher.

[Oldbloke]

Settle down for Fxck sake you blokes.

I asked the Shooters Union Australia for advice on this matter.
They report that they are unable to provide a legal opinion, but suggested I make a formal complaint to the ACMA.

This would be concerning the manner in which my complaint to the seven network was dealt with; as well, to add a further complaint
in relation to the construed attempt to stifle or prevent me from having my right to freedom of speech.

I have done this, and lodged the complaint.

Now it is time for a little patience.

Sounds like a good move DJ

[Die Judicii]

Up date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The ACMA made contact today asking for further info which I have dutifully supplied.
They also made mention that they have noted that the seven network had made the "Not For Publication" move.

Again, it's back to patiently waiting.

[Title_II]

I'll post it. Along with a pic of my butt.

[Apollo]

Up date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The ACMA made contact today asking for further info which I have dutifully supplied.
They also made mention that they have noted that the seven network had made the "Not For Publication" move.

Again, it's back to patiently waiting.

Really, in my view you are making a "mountain out of a mole hill" .

I watched the clip / interview and all I thought was they were funny / stupid / not entertaining at all but I fail to see what complaint you might have. It's media and the only people that affect media is the consumer / viewer.

I've been into firearms for over 50 years and I'm not jumping up and down chasing news rubbish every tick of the clock like some people seem to do. Why post the comment in the first place.

[adam]

Up date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The ACMA made contact today asking for further info which I have dutifully supplied.
They also made mention that they have noted that the seven network had made the "Not For Publication" move.

Again, it's back to patiently waiting.

Thanks for the update DJ...

I disagree with Apollo. I admire what you are doing. In general it seems Australians have become complacent and apathetic about the media's abuse - probably largely because it seems that there's very little we can do. I'd be very interested to see if you're able to make some headway with this, and I would never discourage someone for moving forward when dismissed about a concern in a bullied fashion - in the way that Ch 7 appear to have done with you.