-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Australia's news organizations found in contempt for reporting Cardinal Pell's sex crimes
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
So they actually did their jobs and not help cover up child rape?
I think I have a newfound respect for news outlets.
mistoftime
Member
The evil Pell should never see the light of day again! I am glad the media reported his crimes.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
There was no cover-up. He was charged, tried and convicted of those crimes. He was scheduled to face a second court case for further charges though and that could have been perjured by news coverage of the first. The coverage discussed could even have been a factor in that second case being dropped.
If the Australian media were only interested in fully informing the public of the facts, they could have easily waited until after the second case was complete (or as it happened, dropped). Their sole interest in reporting sooner was to get their dramatic headlines out first to make the most money. Knee-jerk reaction to quick tabloid trash is much more profitable than considered review of detailed and well researched articles.
I don't know what good it does to have a gag order anyway. If the foreign press could report on it without penalty, and Australians have access to the foreign press, then what's the point of doing it?
Sometimes the law is unreasonably restrictive.
Perhaps it was in this case.
Some in the media judged it so, & violated the order.
Will a court side with or against them?
Perhaps it was in this case.
Some in the media judged it so, & violated the order.
Will a court side with or against them?
heres the story from Australias best media source
Media lawyer warns Pell contempt case could have 'chilling effect' on open justice
Media lawyer warns Pell contempt case could have 'chilling effect' on open justice
PureX
Veteran Member
I can't blame that on the media. They were doing their jobs. And I don't buy the assumption that the media coverage irrevocably tainted all possible jurists for a second or thrird or however many consecutive trials. I think the prosecutors are being pussies.
No cover up? Sure Pell was convicted. But the alleged cover up by the Church is like the oldest meme in existence. An open secret, if you will. I hold no animosity towards regular Catholics just going about their business. I probably will never fully trust the Church and it’s hierarchy. Make of that what you will.
And a gag order is useless in today’s world of instant 24/7 access to the literal world news. I doubt even grandpas yelling at their phones to work would not have heard about the goings on in the trial through the news outlets even if the journos kept silent.
The journos seek to make the most money? Colour me shocked. *yawn*
Shady, yes. Surprising? Ehh.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
He has been convicted George Pell - Wikipedia
Yes, he has but the news organisations haven't; that's what I meant.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
They did their jobs, their jobs are bad. Their jobs are to sacrifice the potential wellbeing of other people if it will make their employers more money. Their jobs should be to accurately and completely informed the public of the facts and waiting until after the second trail would not have impacted that.
And I do think the inevitable (and somewhat justified) nature of the reporting would mean that it would be pretty much impossible to secure a jury of Australians for a second trial who wouldn’t rule him unconditionally guilty even if he the allegations brought in that second case were not proven.
No cover-up in relation to the specific gag order between the two proposed cases; that was perfectly legitimate (if practically flawed). It’s dishonest to drag the mess that is the wider controversies in to this very specific question.
I never expressed shock, I was challenging the idea that the media were playing the role of free speech heroes, fighting for the people against the evil restrictive government rather the reality of their being greedy opportunists who will do anything they can get away with to make money regardless of the harm it might do.
PureX
Veteran Member
Ceding to the desire of judges and prosecutors is not responsible journalism. I understand that negative influence that news-for-profit engenders, but we can't have journalists treating the courts like they're mandates are irreproachable. Which seems to be what you are suggesting.
Well, you have very little faith in the autonomy of your fellow Australians, then. And I think you're wrong about that.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Not at all. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticise the gag order, as used in this specific case and as a general principle, especially in the modern context. There should also be scope for the media organisations to legally challenge such orders when they’re made. That doesn’t mean anyone has the right to simple ignore a legal ruling because it will make them more money and journalist aren’t any kind of special case in that context.
I’m not Australian but I have little faith in human beings. Do you really think it would be easy for Pell to receive a fair trial if he faced further separate accusations at this point? Don’t you recognise that any prospective jurors would be influenced by their knowledge of previous cases and intimidated by the danger they’d be in if they returned a not guilty verdict (even if that was correct in that case)? Elements of that kind of bias are inevitable in many cases and can’t be entire removed but reasonable efforts to reduce it as in this case are perfectly understandable. Again, there are wider moral and practical questions to be asked in this topic but those should be addressed on the basis of what it right, not what generates the most eye-catching headlines.
PureX
Veteran Member
You are assuming they did it "for more money". I think they did it because it was news, and because they new that mandate was going to be ignored by one or several other news outlets (because it was a stupid mandate and too many people knew the outcome), so they chose to go with it. I also think they expected some repercussion from the court and felt they could beat it. And I think they should be able to.
Yes, as fair as trials are, anyway. I could easily sit on his next jury and exclude anything I happened to read or hear in the news about his last trial. It's really not that difficult.
No. There are plenty of people who are smart enough to set aside what they've heard and consider the case before them on it's own merits. And I don't believe there would be anything to fear regardless of the decision they made.