BAM Media on Mediawatch (ABCTV)

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Media watch made a poor case and they hid some relevant information from a rival, If it is not an issue, why did they hide it?

As I have said before, but you obviously didn't read, they are probably protecting their sources like most of the media do, it is not a new thing to journalism, in fact I reckon movies have been made about it.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by sasco

But they don't have to tell you who complained, it's known to the Gold Coast Bulletin, the complainant wrote to them FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it may seem News Limited's Campbell Reid did not know his contributor was padding out News Limited's pages with his own clients otherwise the association would have continued.

Perhaps peckstar your friends at Nerang should have been more vigilant - wasnt the same operator engaged as event media management? Perhaps you should ask around the office?????

of course they have to tell us, its a story about discloure and they didnt disclose. Why shouldnt we know that HRTs media company were complaing about its rivals (although how would we know as we were not told)

It may seem like they News know, but once again how do we know? Media watch didnt ask did they, sloppy researh again.

And i will look after my friends at Nerang and you look after your friends at Clayton, prehaps you should ask around the office???

You should try sticking to the topic and not playing the man as it makes your argument look really week because its dumb thing to say as its not about V8Supercars its about the bulletin

edit, its interesting that you have hardly ever posted on this site, but suddenly show a great interest in this thread. should be disclosing who you work for? I'm thinking so. Maybe you made the complaint

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

As I have said before, but you obviously didn't read, they are probably protecting their sources like most of the media do, it is not a new thing to journalism, in fact I reckon movies have been made about it.

Why are they protecting them Trev, what are they hiding?, as ive said before but you obviusly didnt read.

Is it because they are a rival of BAM? and a case of sour grapes? Most likely

[sasco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

of course they have to tell us, its a story about discloure and they didnt disclose. Why shouldnt we know that HRTs media company were complaing about its rivals (although how would we know as we were not told)

It may seem like they know, but once again how do we know. Media watch didnt ask did they, sloppy researh again.

And i will look after my friends at Nerang and you look after your friends at Clayton, prehaps you should ask around the office???

You should try sticking to the topic and not playing the man as it makes your argument look really week because its dumb thing to say as its not about V8Supercars its about the bulletin

You are naming HRT's media company peckstar??? Brave move!!! Why don't you ring HRT's media company and ask them peckstar?? What if it was many companies???

[Trevor]

What you just don't get peckstar is that who the complainant was is truly irrelevant.

I bet you are the sort of person who would want to hang 'whistle-blowers' as well.

[sasco]

Originally Posted by Trevor

What you just don't get peckstar is that who the complainant was is truly irrelevant.

I bet you are the sort of person who would want to hang 'whistle-blowers' as well.

peckstar says whoever complained has done so because of sour grapes. What peckstar should now do is name HRT's media company as the complainant. If it wasnt sour grapes then they have the right to seek information to disclose the identity of peckstar........now that would be funny!!! Go on peckstar, do it!!!!!!

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

What you just don't get peckstar is that who the complainant was is truly irrelevant.

I bet you are the sort of person who would want to hang 'whistle-blowers' as well.

I think i have explained many times why it is relevant

I could just as easily argue that a discloure in the bulletin was irrelevant as it doesnt interest me

A scorened rival is not a whistleblower, it is a scorned rival. It hopes to make money out of this and therefore its discloure is relevant.

[sasco]

but what are you hiding behind peckstar???? name them, you've said it's likely sour grapes .......... name them otherwise you've got something to hide!!!!!!!!

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by sasco

peckstar says whoever complained has done so because of sour grapes. What peckstar should now do is name HRT's media company as the complainant. If it wasnt sour grapes then they have the right to seek information to disclose the identity of peckstar........now that would be funny!!! Go on peckstar, do it!!!!!!

How would i know. Media watch didnt disclose it, as they should have. Poor work by mediawatch (again)

Sad that so many people dont have an issue with them not disclosing it. but have an issue with the Bulletin not disclosing things. seems a bit back to front to me

SASCO, i am not hiding nothing and have no links to any party (other than thinking Media watch is over funded by the Australian taxpayer)

Unless someone who has never posted on this forums uddenly does ten posts in this thread alone. Makes me wonder about their involvement and what they are hiding?

SASCO, i am not hiding nothing and have no links to any party (other than thinking Media watch is over funded by the Australian taxpayer)

[Trevor]

sasco is the not the first person to do this peckstar - move on

Originally Posted by peckstar

How would i know. Media watch didnt disclose it, as they should have. Poor work by mediawatch (again)

Sad that so many people dont have an issue with them not disclosing it. but have an issue with the Bulletin not disclosing things. seems a bit back to front to me

There is a thing about profit which is what the Bulletin are on about, Media Watch do not profit from any of this except by ratings.

Now we are talking about the Bulletin here not about the complainant, you are against the fact that Media Watch didn't disclose so lets stick to that eh? and not bring in the complainant

[sasco]

The complainant would have been investigated by Media Watch and they complained to the Gold Coast Bulletin so the relevant parties know.....

But you inferred it HRT's media company and you said it's sour grapes? If it wasn't they would have a right to DISCLOSE YOU!

So NAME THEM otherwise your afraid of being disclosed!!!! We want a laugh peckstar ----- name them!!!!!!

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by Trevor

sasco is the not the first person to do this peckstar - move on

Does it work if I replace the word Sasco with BAM?

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by sasco

The complainant would have been investigated by Media Watch and they complained to the Gold Coast Bulletin so the relevant parties know.....

As the relevant parties know the Business relationships that BAM has.

Originally Posted by sasco

But you inferred it HRT's media company and you said it's sour grapes? If it wasn't they would have a right to DISCLOSE YOU!

So NAME THEM otherwise your afraid of being disclosed!!!! We want a laugh peckstar ----- name them!!!!!!

To be honest, I took Peckstars reference to HRT's PR Company as a "it's like someone like HRT's PR company".... I don't think he was specifically say it IS their PR Company...

As is continually mentioned, Mediawatch haven't given provided disclosure of their relationship with the PR Company in question.... For all we know they may also represent Jonathon Holmes...

Have you got a dog in the fight sasco? Signed up after the thread started, haven't so much as touch any other thread....

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

Does it work if I replace the word Sasco with BAM?

Yeah it works for me, but doesn't change the outcome.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

As is continually mentioned, Mediawatch haven't given provided disclosure of their relationship with the PR Company in question.... For all we know they may also represent Jonathon Holmes...

One thing Jonathon Holmes is good at is just that, I have seen him do it on Media Watch

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

Yeah it works for me, but doesn't change the outcome.

Sure it does. Or it should if you have any standards.

suddenly not just some opininated poster (like ourselves) Its a paid poster who is flogging a story for some benefit

But fails to disclose on a thread on discloure who they are. What are they hiding (same as mediawatch)

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Sure it does. Or it should if you have any standards.

"I would ask you to not make personal comments about me and stick to the topic"

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

"I would ask you to not make personal comments about me and stick to the topic"

actually you made it personal when you referred to yourself

I take it you were happy with the rest of the post then

Come on SASCO who do you work for. if you are arguing about discloure you should disclose. or at least tell us your not connected it anyway

Which is exactly what media watch should have done

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

How would i know. Media watch didnt disclose it, as they should have. Poor work by mediawatch (again)

SASCO, i am not hiding nothing and have no links to any party (other than thinking Media watch is over funded by the Australian taxpayer)

Oh dear - now Media Watch is evil and overfunded?

Time to let it go. They have outed someone taking advantage of their commercial partnerships for their own benefit and to the detriment of others. Game over.

I would much rather my tax payer dollars go to Media Watch than to eg a Sydney Street race

[sasco]

Originally Posted by peckstar

actually you made it personal when you referred to yourself

I take it you were happy with the rest of the post then

Come on SASCO who do you work for. if you are arguing about discloure you should disclose. or at least tell us your not connected it anyway

Which is exactly what media watch should have done

Oh but peckstar I am not arguing about disclosure of sources, you are. You cannot accept that BOTH Media Watch AND News Limited know where the complaint has come from and are satisfied.

You are the one pointing the finger and now you are the one who is hiding rather than taking the dare first. Do not try and turn this back peckstar, you are the one pointing the finger. You intimated HRT's media company and suggested sour grapes, so back up your suggestions............go on, WE ALL DARE YOU TO BACK IT UP. We would love to see you exposed!!!!!!

[sasco]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Oh dear - now Media Watch is evil and overfunded?

Time to let it go. They have outed someone taking advantage of their commercial partnerships for their own benefit and to the detriment of others. Game over.

I would much rather my tax payer dollars go to Media Watch than to eg a Sydney Street race

Valid point!!!!!!!

[PVDA]

La de da de da de da.

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Time to let it go. They have outed someone taking advantage of their commercial partnerships for their own benefit and to the detriment of others. Game over.

Now you put it like that, I think they need to go to jail.

Can you believe it, a business taking advantage of their commercial partnerships for their own benefit..... this is unheard of and outrageous!!!

The thing that really gets me though is that their activity didn't benefit their competitor.... disgusting!

Comrades, the founders of the Union of Australian Socialist Republics would be rolling in their graves upon hearing this.....

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by sasco

Oh but peckstar I am not arguing about disclosure of sources, you are. You cannot accept that BOTH Media Watch AND News Limited know where the complaint has come from and are satisfied.

You are the one pointing the finger and now you are the one who is hiding rather than taking the dare first. Do not try and turn this back peckstar, you are the one pointing the finger. You intimated HRT's media company and suggested sour grapes, so back up your suggestions............go on, WE ALL DARE YOU TO BACK IT UP. We would love to see you exposed!!!!!!

why would i not accept that Media watch andNews know who the source is. My point is that Media watch have not disclosed the source, which they should because it is relevant to the discusion.

If it is a competitor (like HRT or its media company or any otehr related media componay or Sponsor) then it is relevant and should have been disclosed.

I think that is clear. If it is not maybe you can explain why.

But Whistleblower does not cut it.

You have mis-read my suggestion. I cant back it because media watch failed to disclose. As i have said continuiously

Now either tell us you have some part of this story, or tell us you dont. But come clean. everyone else has.

DRT, just so you are aware. The goverenment budget for media watch is bigger than the government budget for the sydney street race, its average TV audience is smaller. it produces no financial benefit outside of its direct employees.

Not sure why you would rather money was spent on it.

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by sasco

Oh but peckstar I am not arguing about disclosure of sources, you are. You cannot accept that BOTH Media Watch AND News Limited know where the complaint has come from and are satisfied.

I think it's pretty clear the e-mail was from (SOURCE) to BAM/News Ltd and leaded from (SOURCE?) to Mediawatch...

Much like knowing who BAM's clients are make a difference to you when your reading puff promo pieces that probably aren't going to change anyones life, knowing who SOURCE? is to Peckstar and Myself is important when we're viewing a piece that's likely to directly cost people their job...

Nothing wrong with that aye? You just think it's unfair that lack of disclosure might lead to someone unwittingly buying an set of Irwin vice-grips, which could lead to an over supply of tools..... we think it's unfair that lack of disclosure might lead to someone losing their job, which could lead to them losing their house.... just different views.