Oakleigh Bob Jane store accused on mediawatch - Page 3

MethodX · 15-04-2010, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montyv8

But didn't the cameraman call the father a f'n terrorist? not the 'criminal' son?
If i read your posts correctly the cameraman has all the rights in the world to harass the son, as he was in a riot.
So what gives the cameraman the right to harass the father? he wasn't there at the riot?

In reality he doesnt have the right to harass the son either.

itchy brother · 15-04-2010, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MethodX

In reality he doesnt have the right to harass the son either.

Well, now he has another reality to contend with! :monkes:
He has been given the right to look elswhere for employment!!!

Trevor 57 · 15-04-2010, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

He was inciting violence.... seems to me your the one who cant see it.

I think you need to re-acess whats being discussed here.. as you dont appear to be following the discussion. We are discussion the actions of the camerman.... inciting violence and hatred.
We are not discussing the actions of the 19yr old who is facing court for his own stupidity.

what does the US MILITARY have to do with this?
Your arguements are a bit flimsy to say the least.
Your again comparing apples with oranges...
Do we invade his country?
He isnt a "terrorist" organisation... nor is he on the FBIs most wanted list...

Spot on Jim - well said

Trevor 57 · 15-04-2010, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montyv8

But didn't the cameraman call the father a f'n terrorist? not the 'criminal' son?
If i read your posts correctly the cameraman has all the rights in the world to harass the son, as he was in a riot.
So what gives the cameraman the right to harass the father? he wasn't there at the riot?

Again, spot on Monty.

Some people are missing the point here, the father did nothing wrong, but copped a tiraid from an upstart cameraman.

The cameraman deserves all he get, ******** journalism

A media cameraman is there to record 'fact', not create news.

platinumXR · 15-04-2010, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

A media cameraman is there to record 'fact', not create news.

You're optimistic!

Jim Goose · 15-04-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I have the maturity to accept that others don't see things as I do I might try to argue my point in an inteliigent manner but throwing insults is immature and uninteligent, it acheives nothing but resentmentthis is my point if I have a different point of view I am stupid. and no I'm not looking for an arguement as such but I am putting across a different point of view , you might call it playing devils advocate but as I have stated earlier I have difficulty felling sorry for the ciminal who was supposed to be the victim of the cameraman. I have little doubt that had the been no witnesses and if the filming had stopped the cameraman would have been treated the same way as the bob jane shop had been treated you could see the agression being held back only because of the camera. society needs to stop focusing on the "poor criminals" and crack down on violent youths in our community if part of this process involves media confrontation so be it (but maybe better result would be acheived with better people skills on the part of the cameraman)

Your still not getting the point. So there isnt much point is trying to discuss/ argue with you as you appear lost in another world with your focus on the 19yr old.... but i'll try again. It may sink in.

You have little doubts do you? So the 19yr old wouldve simply bashed him for no reason? Again your missing the point and you must have missed the 10mins of harasment by the camera man towards they guys father and the insults..

So buy focussing on the criminals you mean harass them as they leave court for 10 to 15mins by jamming a camera in their face and making racial insults? Thereby inciting someone to act violently towards them?

Not to mention putting them in a category of "terrorist" and locking them up for decades in jail without trial.... hmmm.

The cameraman got his footage as the guy left the court.
There was no need to follow them for 10 to 15mins.
This wasnt the crime of the centuary
The cameraman is supposed to be a professional who represents CH9, he DOES NOT represent the public.
He had no right to harass or incite violence
And he had no right to throw a racial insult at the guys father for NO REASON.

GS608 · 15-04-2010, 08:20 AM

or maybe the camera man himself :alien2:

FGII-XR6 · 15-04-2010, 09:13 AM

again with the assumptions I have friends who are of middle eastern origin I don’t care what race the teenager was he is still criminal scum, and yes I am firmly against alcohol when it is used to get so intoxicated that the person behaves in an antisocial manner. The safe recreational use I alcohol I have no issue with but why you brought up alcohol here I have no idea. Like others in this thread when you encounter an opinion different to yours you find it difficult to come up with intelligent debate so instead you rely on insults and assumptions. I feel truly sorry for you limited capacity intelligent debate. what really makes it sad is that a moderator resorts to insults , a mod should know better

StrokedXT · 15-04-2010, 09:32 AM

Au3xr6 is entitled to his opinion.

The cameraman was totally within his rights to film the alledged criminal as he left the court. He legally had the right to follow him with the camera as long as he wanted to in a public place.

He did however step over the line calling the father a terrorist to get a reaction, but things are said in the heat of the moment all the time and think the whole thing is being blown ay out of proportion. The guy has been fired what more do people want I think the fact the guy has lost his livelihood for a throw away word is a pretty harsh penalty when the alledged criminal will probably walk away from court with nothing.

Really the father and son should have just kept walking away and it should never have got to the point of trading insults etc, but they chose to keep turning back to tell the cameraman to go away.

RG · 15-04-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Cure: Ignore him and generally he will dissolve.

Good to see you back SB!

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

again with the assumptions I have friends who are of middle eastern origin I don’t care what race the teenager was he is still criminal scum, and yes I am firmly against alcohol when it is used to get so intoxicated that the person behaves in an antisocial manner. The safe recreational use I alcohol I have no issue with but why you brought up alcohol here I have no idea. Like others in this thread when you encounter an opinion different to yours you find it difficult to come up with intelligent debate so instead you rely on insults and assumptions. I feel truly sorry for you limited capacity intelligent debate. what really makes it sad is that a moderator resorts to insults , a mod should know better

You do realise that you just confirmed and strengthened SB's point with that post don't you?

An attempt at an intelligent retort when struggling really isn't one of your greatest ideas, especially considering you went nowhere near pulling it off.

stang65 · 15-04-2010, 01:09 PM

Lets say, hypothetically au3xr6 you had a son, your son took part in the easternats riot was caught went to trial and you walked out with him out of the court and this happen.

And then you ( lets pretend you were muslim as we know at this time in our history people are a little insecure around some due to the world situation at present) you were confronted by this cameraman and after 15 minutes of harrassing you he called you a fn terrorist, What would you have done? Would you still have the same opinion.

Barry_v · 15-04-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I feel truly sorry for you limited capacity intelligent debate.

on structure sentence should you work.

I feel my time would be wasted writing an essay trying to educate the village idiot. your arguement is so outlandish (he brought the racial abuse on himself by asking to be left alone) its hard to know where to start.

MAD · 15-04-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

The cameraman was totally within his rights to film the alledged criminal as he left the court. He legally had the right to follow him with the camera as long as he wanted to in a public place.

He may have had the right to do that, and it may not be illegal to do so, that doesnt make it right. Anyone with a half decent bone in their body would know that they're already crossing the line.

It would be like not bothering to avoid a car accident just because the other driver was at fault... it's still going to hurt!

StrokedXT · 15-04-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

He may have had the right to do that, and it may not be illegal to do so, that doesnt make it right. Anyone with a half decent bone in their body would know that they're already crossing the line.

It would be like not bothering to avoid a car accident just because the other driver was at fault... it's still going to hurt!

Up until the point of calling the father a terrorist he was just doing his job. Nothing like avoiding a car accident. Everyday people are filmed coming and going from a court houses all around the country, if they show a hint that they may fire up the camera operator will follow them to try and get that angry reaction shot and get paid as thats what sells.

As for the person saying AU3xr6 is a closet racist, i see nothing to back that up.

MAD · 15-04-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

Up until the point of calling the father a terrorist he was just doing his job. Nothing like avoiding a car accident. Everyday people are filmed coming and going from a court houses all around the country, if they show a hint that they may fire up the camera operator will follow them to try and get that angry reaction shot and get paid as thats what sells.

Like I said it may be 'legal', that doesnt make it right.

StrokedXT · 15-04-2010, 03:30 PM

I see no issue with taking footage of an alledged criminal. I bet you wouldnt be saying it was wrong if they were showing a pedophile or rapist on the news.

BOSHOG · 15-04-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

I see no issue with taking footage of an alledged criminal. I bet you wouldnt be saying it was wrong if they were showing a pedophile or rapist on the news.

what if hes proven innocent? shouldnt this then open the door to a defamation lawsuit?

MAD · 15-04-2010, 03:36 PM

As someone else has mentioned, there's filming the person leaving court... then there's being a down right pest.

StrokedXT · 15-04-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

what if hes proven innocent? shouldnt this then open the door to a defamation lawsuit?

No thats why they say alleged, it covers them from defamation etc.

If they said the rioter or the criminal than yes but as long as they state alleged it is acceptable by law.

Auslandau · 15-04-2010, 03:41 PM

See nothing wrong with a quick snippet on the news of someone running away from the camera ... quite entertaining sometimes .... but this is very wrong and next time you see it you can ask what part are they not showing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YODA

on structure sentence should you work.

Agree

| [/url] |

BOSHOG · 15-04-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

No thats why they say alleged, it covers them from defamation etc.

If they said the rioter or the criminal than yes but as long as they state alleged it is acceptable by law.

so one word makes up for your face being plastered across national news? what a world we live in

Bobman · 15-04-2010, 04:54 PM

Media are a bunch of scum bags, especially the cameramen.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 15-04-2010, 05:01 PM

indeed.

a certain tabloid current events program probably, 15 years ago, maybe more, harassed a relative of mine, accusing him of dodgy business practice on the 'tip off' from one uneducated ignoramus who was spouting BS for publicity. The crew went around, followed him all day provoking him, then when he finally got home, they came up to him again harassing and accusing him further, so he pointed away from the house saying basically 'get off my property', the cameraman then ran into his hand at speed as they were jogging after him.

the segment was screened stating that my relative had punched the camera, thus the bleeding hand.

Peter B - CV8 · 15-04-2010, 05:01 PM

I reckon it's time that there was a media exclusion zone of say 100 metres around every courthouse. It makes me angry seeing people harassed by camera/sound men/reporters from the various media outlets - in most cases just for a "newsworthy" reaction.
People appearing in court should not have to put up with a media frenzy before their case is even heard/decided. Let the courts release their findings to the media - instead of the media scrum (or scum more accurately) that we currently have to endure.

Rodp · 15-04-2010, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

Up until the point of calling the father a terrorist he was just doing his job. Nothing like avoiding a car accident. Everyday people are filmed coming and going from a court houses all around the country, if they show a hint that they may fire up the camera operator will follow them to try and get that angry reaction shot and get paid as thats what sells.

Even from a moral perspective, you don't see a problem with that? It wouldn't have been so bad if the news department had reported that 'when we harassed the pair while leaving court for 10 minutes and we ignored their pleas to let them leave peacefully, they finally lashed out - AND WE CAUGHT IT ON CAMERA!!!'

However, they riled the pair up, snipped out the harassment and the father being called a F'n terrorist and showed the reaction - which any normal viewer would have assumed happened without provocation and made a judgement on them based on it. For me, the judgement I would have made on the shown footage and the unedited footage would be opposites - and that's the skew the news department manipulated to make.

Going further, I honestly don't see the need to stick a camera in the face of someone leaving from court - report it, fine. I'm sure it was a trying time (npi) for those involved, leave them be.

Rodp · 15-04-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

I see no issue with taking footage of an alledged criminal. I bet you wouldnt be saying it was wrong if they were showing a pedophile or rapist on the news.

What would you be saying if the accused was you and you were innocent yet convicted in your trial by media?

BOSHOG · 15-04-2010, 05:54 PM

well said rodp

vztrt · 15-04-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Again, spot on Monty.

Some people are missing the point here, the father did nothing wrong, but copped a tiraid from an upstart cameraman.

The cameraman deserves all he get, ******** journalism

A media cameraman is there to record 'fact', not create news.

But its commercial television, so naturally news comes second to ethics.
Yet it seems to work, ACA and TT have been going for a long time with their 'hard hitting' journalism....you know what bra is good for you!! Ch9 have moved this rubbish over to their news service the slot is a big money maker for advertising. The cameraman (while a tool) is a scapegoat as I'm sure he would be instructed to do this rubbish.

Mind you Ch7 is no better.

StrokedXT · 15-04-2010, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

What would you be saying if the accused was you and you were innocent yet convicted in your trial by media?

Honestly I probably would not care, All i have stated is the cameraman was doing his job and not breaking any laws filming the alleged offender, At the point he called the father a terrorist he stepped over the line.

I am not here to make a moral judgement on if the media should show alleged offenders on the news or not, I also wont make moral judgements on people who take what the media present at face value as most people are aware of the medias tactics to get a reaction.

I dont make the law that decides what can and cant be filmed, all i have done is pointed out the reality of the situation that the cameraman engaged in perfectly legal behavior until he got to that line and crossed it.

If you have an issue with my post Rod take it up with the govt, they make the rules not me.

Rodp · 15-04-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeep_by_ford

Honestly I probably would not care, All i have stated is the cameraman was doing his job and not breaking any laws filming the alleged offender, At the point he called the father a terrorist he stepped over the line.

Right. So you were incorrectly accused of rape or pedophilia, harassed by the media after a day in court to the point that those who are there to support you, lash out. Oops - instantly guilty in the eyes of the public. At that point it no longer matters that you were found innocent... innocent isn't news worthy.

Can't exist in public without those around you thinking you're a rapist or a kiddy fiddler - but you don't care.