BAM Media on Mediawatch (ABCTV)

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Still not a reason to not disclose it. If the email was important enough to mention in the article. Its relevant

As far as we know they started a witch hunt over Ian the truck driver because a competitor started complaining.

Nothing like that at all... think more along the lines of a major newspaper perhaps suggesting that they would welcome input, articles, photographs, features... and then choosing not to do so...

In the media world, your word is supposed to be as good as your bond... maybe they are learning bad habits from motorsport bods

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Nothing like that at all... think more along the lines of a major newspaper perhaps suggesting that they would welcome input, articles, photographs, features... and then choosing not to do so...

In the media world, your word is supposed to be as good as your bond... maybe they are learning bad habits from motorsport bods

Doesnt the major newspaper have that right though? and big deal if they do really, thats between the newspaper and the person who they burnt

On the other hand it doesn't explain why the tax payer run and supposedly independent and unbiased MW didn't disclose the sender of the email. What or who are they hiding/protecting

and yes maybe they are learning bad things from Jamie Whincup

[Umai Naa]

Not sure how Mr Whincup is involved in the matter between BAM Media and Media Watch.

[Trevor]

One thing I have learnt in my 55 years is that it is impossible to argue or rationalise with some people. I could go on to explain the type of people that I am refering to, but I will most certainly cop a penalty, suffice to say that peckstar is the most difficult person I have dealt with on internet forums, and I have dealt with a few.

So I politely withdraw from this debate because I will most like say something that I will later regret.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Not sure how Mr Whincup is involved in the matter between BAM Media and Media Watch.

GTR quote

In the media world, your word is supposed to be as good as your bond... maybe they are learning bad habits from motorsport bods

Mr Whincup is the one currently being sued by Monster for allegedly breaking his word.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Trevor

One thing I have learnt in my 55 years is that it is impossible to argue or rationalise with some people. I could go on to explain the type of people that I am refering to, but I will most certainly cop a penalty, suffice to say that peckstar is the most difficult person I have dealt with on internet forums, and I have dealt with a few.

So I politely withdraw from this debate because I will most like say something that I will later regret.

Its easy, dont argue back, acknowledge their point as valid/relevant and then the discusion can move on. When you argue against their point. you have to come up with some valid argument against. and then the argument continues and if the new valid argument is weak then you get argued against and it continues.

then their is less anomosity and you wont feel like saying something you will later regret

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by peckstar

GTR quote



Mr Whincup is the one currently being sued by Monster for allegedly breaking his word.

He is not breaking his word, his team changed sponsors and does not accomodate for Monster's existing contract with him. They're taking action against him because he signed the contract. If the team signed the contract, Monster would be taking Triple Eight to court. Clearly, he would be seeking to terminate the contract in amicable fashion, but Monster has made a point of letting everyone know that it will be a matter for the courts to sort out. Pretty standard stuff, really.

That's all it is, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I'm NOT going to get into an argument with you over it.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

He is not breaking his word, his team changed sponsors and does not accomodate for Monster's existing contract with him. They're taking action against him because he signed the contract. If the team signed the contract, Monster would be taking Triple Eight to court. Clearly, he would be seeking to terminate the contract in amicable fashion, but Monster has made a point of letting everyone know that it will be a matter for the courts to sort out. Pretty standard stuff, really.

That's all it is, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I'm NOT going to get into an argument with you over it.

I agree, its off topic, I didnt bring it up though. GTR did

but he is breaking his word, but we are alreday discussing it in the appropriate thread

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Trevor

One thing I have learnt in my 55 years is that it is impossible to argue or rationalise with some people. I could go on to explain the type of people that I am refering to, but I will most certainly cop a penalty, suffice to say that peckstar is the most difficult person I have dealt with on internet forums, and I have dealt with a few.

So I politely withdraw from this debate because I will most like say something that I will later regret.

+1

[PVDA]

Can the admins add this one to the list as I find it so handy with some of the threads on 10ths...

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

If Media Watch used the single email as the basis of its broadcast, as the basis of its communications with the Gold Coast Bulletin, as the basis of its communications with the wider News Limited group, I would agree with you.

But they didnt... it was a trigger for a wider investigation most certainly, but not the only body of evidence they had in their armoury to proceed with their public broadcast. The breadth of the people & organisations apparently canvassed by Media Watch at their instigation might be a surprise...

Sounds like you may have a bit more insight into the workings of the story.. are you able to share the details?

What we saw very much looked like a single e-mail as the basis (certainly nothing else was referenced?), be interesting to know whether this has been a long simmering issue that required the right spark, or whether the canvasing of other parties was to confirm facts...

The former changes things a little for me, the latter doesn't make it any less of a PR play, just means others want to gain from it as well.

The thing that sets alarms bells of for me, is that if you're genuinely that aggrieved by the situation, two weeks doesn't seem like a hell of a long time to have exhausted your options with progressing things up the News Ltd food chain.... be very interesting to know at exactly what point MW were let loose.

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by peckstar

On the other hand it doesn't explain why the tax payer run and supposedly independent and unbiased MW didn't disclose the sender of the email. What or who are they hiding/protecting

Nobody knows for sure. Email them and ask if you're so concerned.

But it is not important - not in the slightest.

It's obviously not from a BAM client. It's equally obviously from a rival V8 Supercar team. It doesn't matter which one it is. Whether it's HRT or BJR or anyone else, they have the same intentions, the same grievance and the same hope of having it addressed.

[Aquarius]

It could be from a rival sponsor also

[Chappelli]

Originally Posted by eduardo1

Nobody knows for sure. Email them and ask if you're so concerned.

But it is not important - not in the slightest.

It's obviously not from a BAM client. It's equally obviously from a rival V8 Supercar team. It doesn't matter which one it is. Whether it's HRT or BJR or anyone else, they have the same intentions, the same grievance and the same hope of having it addressed.

Team or their PR Company you think?

Strange as it may seem, for me if it were from a directly from a team it'd change the context somewhat as their business wouldn't directly benefit from the washup...

I don't think you necessarily have to name names. I think you're right, HRT or BJR would probably have the same intentions... But I think the intentions are different between a PR Company and a Team... so while I don't think the name is important, I believe "V8 Supercar Team frustrated at lack of coverage" and "PR Company frustrated at lack of coverage" are two very very different stories....

Be interesting to know whether there's a preamble to all of this... Two weeks seems like a pretty quick transition from e-mailing the editor of the local rag to going to the media about it (you would think there's plenty of scope to go up and up the food chain in a company as large as News Ltd)..... Again, even if it was a PR company, if it's a long running saga with some News Ltd heavy hitters ignoring grievance I'd understand.... Two weeks (if that) seems like a very short turn around between letter of frustration and going to the media.... unless you've got intent beyond remedy.

Eduardo, just as a matter of interest. Are you able to give us some insight into where you see the difference in why the standard of disclosure should be different between GCB Publishing stories that benefits BAM's business and MW broadcasting a story that benefits the source's business (assuming it is a PR company at this stage... and can you humour me for a second if you don't think there's any upside for the source).

[eduardo1]

Originally Posted by Chappelli

Eduardo, just as a matter of interest. Are you able to give us some insight into where you see the difference in why the standard of disclosure should be different between GCB Publishing stories that benefits BAM's business and MW broadcasting a story that benefits the source's business (assuming it is a PR company at this stage... and can you humour me for a second if you don't think there's any upside for the source).

Team or PR company - it's two sides of the same coin - one merely works for the other.

MW outlined a breach of News Ltd's own standards - the very ones you quoted - relating to Brett Murray's editorial contributions. Contributions that regularly, materially benefited his clients without disclosure that he was in charge of their publicity. News Limited ended his column.

MW posted the content of an email that comes from a team (or associated partner). The email WAS the disclosure. Had they not revealed that email, everyone would have assumed that they simply noticed it and acted independently.

The only 'benefit' for the email source is that, with a weekly motorsport column (if it's revived with another contributor) that has a 'fairer' allocation of news coverage for teams, they 'may' get increased coverage.

I don't see any comparison whatsoever.

For the record, I know Crusher well, have done for a long time, like him a lot and thoroughly enjoy his company. He was simply doing the right thing by his clients and taking full advantage of a situation. The failing is on Gold Coast Bulletin - the obligation was on them to ensure the appropriate disclosures were made - not Crusher's. I think axing his column was an over reaction - a few small amendments and that fairer rotation of team coverage would have sufficed because he is a good writer.

And, respectfully, that's the last I'm going to engage in this thread.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Aquarius

It could be from a rival sponsor also

A sponsor is not likely to square off against another sponsor directly, and in public..

[formerf1champ]

Just had a look at that video. Funny viewing, I had a laugh.