Loadedog versus the Canberra Times

johnboy 13 February 2007 38

[First filed: February 08, 2007 @ 17:53]

You may remember we mentioned in passing Loadedog’s story about a marijuana drought gripping the ACT.

A lot of other news outlets followed up the story. Loadedog and his correspondent were briefly concerned the notoriety would lead to unwanted attention, but soon the storm passed.

Until this Monday when the Canberra Times’ Public Sector Informant grabbed a chunk of the text from the story and (as is too often the case) decided that “local website” was sufficient attribution, rather than actually mentioning the name of the site (as even ratbag bloggers would have the decency to do).

This sort of thing happens to us a lot (although thankfully it has been getting better). Loadedog, however, has more time on his hands and a more finely developed sense of injustice, so he’s off to Media Watch and the Press Council to get their thoughts on the practice. You can read all the details over on his remodeled site.

We await the outcome with interest.

UPDATED: Loadedog has more on the story with the Press Council ruling that journalist’s standards of attribution can be lower than high school students or ratbag bloggers. We await Media Watch’s approach to the issue

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
38 Responses to Loadedog versus the Canberra Times
louise louise 2:20 pm 14 Feb 07

Back to the point of a poorly attributed source. What about the moral copyright issue? Surely if someone writes something, and their name is on it, they have the right to be acknowledgeed as the author? I thought you had to sign away your copyright to lose it.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 10:56 am 14 Feb 07

there is an idea in that simto… A moveable statue… like an action figure…

simto simto 10:51 am 14 Feb 07

Okay, the wig can migrate to his chin, and be his beard…

If they make statues like they make action figures, it doesn’t have to look particularly like anybody anyway…

Thumper Thumper 10:51 am 14 Feb 07

Or Perth and became Michael Hutchence for INXS?

hell, they looked the same, sang the same and moved the same.

Okay, either way he is dead. Therefore only one conclusion can be drawn, that is, that Gary Humphries really is Jim Morrison.

No doubt about it…

bonfire bonfire 10:28 am 14 Feb 07

maybe he moved to the uk and became morrisey ?

Hasdrubahl Hasdrubahl 10:22 am 14 Feb 07

i used to work with a Gary Morrison once.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 10:18 am 14 Feb 07

Jim Humphries

West_Kambah_4eva West_Kambah_4eva 10:14 am 14 Feb 07


Maelinar Maelinar 9:42 am 14 Feb 07

I don’t use a nom de plume.

Thumper Thumper 9:16 am 14 Feb 07

Then it would be the LA Woman album era Morrison.

okay, we’d also need a gold belly to attach as well.

In fact, given the mysterious death of the said Lizard King, is it at all possible that, after faking his death, Morrison moved to Canberra and in fact is Gary Humphries?

Hmmm, you know it makes sense.

johnboy johnboy 9:00 am 14 Feb 07

and the beard?

Thumper Thumper 8:32 am 14 Feb 07

That could work, kind of….

A giant golden wig…

simto simto 8:22 am 14 Feb 07

Well, obviously. A compromise solution is that the Garry Humphries statue could be built with an optional wig, so that of an evening, it can go from a statue that looks vaguely like Garry to a statue that looks vaguely like Jim…

West_Kambah_4eva West_Kambah_4eva 8:04 am 14 Feb 07

There is only enough funding for a 50 foot statue of Jim Morrison…

Comment by Thumper — 14 February, 2007 @ 8:02 am

Gold, though, I take it…

Thumper Thumper 8:02 am 14 Feb 07

There is only enough funding for a 50 foot statue of Jim Morrison…

johnboy johnboy 9:50 pm 13 Feb 07

but the defamation liability is yours alone.

Hasdrubahl Hasdrubahl 9:39 pm 13 Feb 07

Bit difficult when most people around here (with the exception of me, of course) are using nom de plumes.

I hereby cede the copyright over all my inane utterings to the RiotACT, in perpetuity, in all media and internationally.

johnboy johnboy 9:18 pm 13 Feb 07

You bet your arse you own them

Hasdrubahl Hasdrubahl 8:54 pm 13 Feb 07

Do we “own our own comments” on a blog? I doubt it. Mind you, Rupe can have mine, for a fee….

J Dawg J Dawg 8:50 pm 13 Feb 07

With regards to newspapers/magazines only referring to the source as “another magazine/newspaper”, wouldn’t that be a bit different because they are quoting a person who works for, and represents that “other” magazine/newspaper. In this case, a person is expressing their personal views on a blog, where they own their own comments, unless we all receive a cheque in the mail from JB at the start of each month…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site