Australian Politics Forum - Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25115
Gender: male

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #75 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:27am

Aussie wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:26am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:09am:

This ruling establishes a legal precedent for cheeky headlines. It puts the Tele in a very tricky position.

Any headline - in itself - can now be deemed defamatory.

If I was Bill Shorten, I’d be getting the legal team ready.

I'm only going on schmedia reports about this....but I think you may be incorrect on that. The 'Hockey' headline above the article was not the problem. It was the use of the headline itself as stand alone few words on promotion banners and on some social media promotions which were the fatal use.

Exactly, because the headline lead readers to form an adverse opinion before reading the article.

Back to top

Scott Morrison DID wipe the floor with Bull Shitten!!!

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 72209
Gender: male

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #76 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:17am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Its time wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Tell us all exactly how you have came to the conclusion that the Libs havent doubled the budget deficit Armpit ? You would be best to come to terms with the harsh reality because come MYEFO my prediction is it will be triple.

Labor and the Greens have helped by blocking key savings measures in the Senate - billions of dollars worth of savings.

such as?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92279
Gender: male

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #77 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 2:29pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:26am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:09am:

This ruling establishes a legal precedent for cheeky headlines. It puts the Tele in a very tricky position.

Any headline - in itself - can now be deemed defamatory.

If I was Bill Shorten, I’d be getting the legal team ready.

Wrong - only those that claim a politician is for sale, for example, which is clearly defamatory in Hockey's case. Not so sure about ALP pollies, though.

That's right. The defence argued the headline referred to the article, which was not found to be defamatory. There were not found to be any inaccuracies in the article. The headline, however, was ruled to be defamatory in itself.

The problem for the media is this: headlines sell a story and try to grab a reader's attention. They are deliberately over-the-top. They use hyperbole, puns, irony and a host of other methods to get people reading or clicking on a link.

No one more than the tabloid media is guilty of this. Unless they want to pay these sorts of damages in future, they will have to reform their editorial and stop what the judge in this case found to be defamatory.

My guess is they will carry on as normal and settle or pay the damages. Based on this ruling, the Tele and others WILL defame their political enemies as we lead up to the next election.

The Tele are also good at front-page mock-ups: the Rudd cabinet dressed up as communist dictators. Clive Palmer naked on a giant "wrecking ball". Mark Scott from the ABC dressed up as a terrorist.

The consequences of this ruling will be far more damaging to the tabloid press than the broadsheets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Very_Vinnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 539
Gender: male

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #78 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:51pm

Quote:

Fairfax had “not made out their claims of qualified privilege’’, Justice White said.

... and THERE lies thee CRUX of the matter

Was Hockey "for sale" - in that fiscal policy could be changed with a sufficiently sized donation to the Liberal Party Campaign Fundraising arm ?

NO - of course not
I don't believe he WAS

Was Joe Hockey's time and access "for sale"- in his capacity as Federal Treasurer - in the form of cash donations to Liberal Party Campaign Fundraising arm ?

UNDDOUBTEDLY - RIGHT DOWN TO PRICE LISTS OUT THERE
- for those his time and access was being marketed to

Hockey, of course, is not the personal recipient of any funds but it is hard to draw a total distinction between the North Sydney Forum's interests and his own, given the former is dedicated to the re-election of the latter.

It is one of a number of such vehicles used by MPs on both sides of the political aisle for years. Former treasurer Peter Costello's Higgins 200 Club was reported to have $900,000 in assets still in its accounts as recently as two years ago, long after he left politics.

Right now, such vehicles are within the rules. But should they be? By marketing Hockey's pivotal role in economic decision making, the North Sydney Forum may be said to be offering something that is not really its to sell, that is, gold-card entree to one of our highest public offices.

What these already well-connected companies and industry groups, such as the Financial Services Council and the National Australia Bank, have received as a return on their investment remains unclear.

But it's an entirely legitimate question, given that the financial services industry stands to gain substantially from policy decisions favourable to them, such as the Abbott government's commitment to rolling back consumer protections in the previous government's financial advice laws.

Politicians are fond of invoking the fair go as the quintessential Australian ethic.

But it is hard to discern that fair go for voters when special access is being sold to the rich and powerful and the money used to run party political campaigns

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/cash-for-a-chat-is-corr...

The SMH of old would have let "legal" spend a bit more with this and taken their advice

Had the headline read ...

Joe Hockey for RENT

... they would have got away with it

All said and done, I support the findings of the best justice system in the world

Back to top

There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?
I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

- Robert Francis Kennedy

IP Logged

double plus good Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5693 Gender:	Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH Reply #79 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 2:14pm That's pretty common practice in party fund-raising, Vinnie. The SMH was clearly making the insinuation that Hockey was accepting bribes. A very serious allegation to make without proof of personal advantage.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92279
Gender: male

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #80 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 2:28pm

double plus good wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 2:14pm:

That's pretty common practice in party fund-raising, Vinnie. The SMH was clearly making the insinuation that Hockey was accepting bribes. A very serious allegation to make without proof of personal advantage.

The proof was in the donations that went to the "North Sydney Forum" - a front group for a Joe Hockey campaign fund.

This is not common practice at all. Political donations are required to be submitted to the Treasurers of political parties. The donors' names are required to be published over a certain amount.

The money Joe Hockey elicited went into his own campaign chest. The tens of thousands donated by companies were not published as political donations. It was a sneaky way around the electoral laws.

And this allegation was proven in the article.

The judge, however, ruled on the headline: treasurer for sale. The substance of the article was not part of the final ruling.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 2:35pm by Mattyfisk »

IP Logged

double plus good Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5693 Gender:	Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH Reply #81 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:02pm Oh yes, Carnal, but I just have one thing...DDDDDEEEEERRRRR!!!!!
Back to top	IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 92279 Gender:	Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH Reply #82 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm double plus good wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:02pm: Oh yes, Carnal, but I just have one thing...DDDDDEEEEERRRRR!!!!! Do you now? Who’a a clever boy then?
Back to top	IP Logged

Its time

Gold Member

Offline

Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female

Re: Hockey wins $200k defamation damages over SMH
Reply #83 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:13pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:17am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Its time wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Tell us all exactly how you have came to the conclusion that the Libs havent doubled the budget deficit Armpit ? You would be best to come to terms with the harsh reality because come MYEFO my prediction is it will be triple.

Labor and the Greens have helped by blocking key savings measures in the Senate - billions of dollars worth of savings.

such as?

Sounds to me that armpit finally believes that the libs have indeed doubled the budget deficit , but he thinks the senate have "helped" but not to the tune of 17 BILLLLLLLLLLLLLION dollars , i will hold back for awhile on the national debt increase because that is a dooozy thats set to get much bigger as each day passes with no new revenue streams Angry

Back to top

IP Logged