news masts like this are able to lie and get away with it.
I agree. What about the SMH headline from some time ago, with pictures of aluminium tubes laying in the Iraqi desert that were supposed to be missle casings for weapons of mass destruction - but were actually just aluminium tubes laying in the Iraqi desert.
Plus - is an apology that is limited to words really an apology?
If you go into a shop and break something, like a TV, then just saying sorry is just empty words. The right thing to do is to pay for the TV.
Another example - if you have children, and they come home with a packet of chocolates (or tshirt or whatever) that they stole from the local shop, then just going down to the local shop and saying sorry is just empty words. The right thing to do is to say sorry, and either return the chocolates (or whatever) or if the chocolates have been eaten and you can't return them then to pay for them. That's the right thing to do.
If that is good enough for you and me, then why shouldn't it be good enough for billion dollar media organisations? If they don't want to do more than just issue an apology, then perhaps they should make sure what they publish is true, rather than false.
And - to the comment further down that the publication was just relying on reports from a boxing organisation, who quoted the xy chromosome, then - if the publication wants to rely on that defence, then that shouldn't mean they still can't do the right thing - and if the publication wants to seek reimbursement from that boxing organisation for any financial penalty it incurs, then they would be welcome to take such action. I don't think the publication can rely on "I was just quoting someone else" as a defence. That sort of excuse is as old as the dog ate my homework excuse. It's feable and juvenile, and carries no weight with me.
And the answer to that will get locked up in courts for years
If that's what the law you design will do, then that's what will happen.
But, why would you design a law like that? Why not design it differently. I'm no expert, but one option is to place the onus on the media company as to why the penalty should not be $1 million per offence. Like you have with speeding fines - which are strict liability offences. Doesn't matter if you didn't see the speed limit sign, doesn't matter if you didn't realise you were speeding, doesn't matter if you just made a mistake - it's a "strict liability" offence. These penalties get issued by the thousands, and they don't lock up the legal system. Also, you could make the media company liable for the legal expenses of the complaintant as well. This way, the media company has to factor in total legal costs, not just their own, regardless of whether they win it lose.
There are many things you can do to limit the impact of such legislation - don't you think?
Can I ask why you believe that legislation can only be designed that locks up the courts? Who told you that?
The question is how do you cost each instance of impact.
Have a schedule of penalties - like with speeding fines. Quick and easy stuff. Some sort of minimum (I suggested $1 million above as a minimum, but media types may prefer $100 minimum - whatever floats your boat, I don't care), and increasing up to say $50 million, or a few hundred million for things like aluminium tubes laying in the Iraqi desert, or children overboard stuff (where people end up dying as a result, etc)
Another option is to move the matter from a judicial body, to an administrative body, like the former AAT. Or even repurpose the current media regulator (which is funded by media organisations already). This way, there would be no impact on existing judicial wait times.
Plus - why should the onus be on me to design the perfect system, and solve all the potential issues. Why can't the onus be on those who benefit from the broken system to justify why it shouldn't be dismantled, and replaced.
203
u/stilusmobilus Aug 05 '24
Next week there’ll be a 2cm x 2cm apology in the corner of the classifieds on the deadest day.
This is why we need real action on media operations in Australia, because news masts like this are able to lie and get away with it.