Posetti v. The Oz

Yes, particularly frigging ridiculous given that everyone who’s ever had the misfortune to read The Australian knows that all the comments quoted were right on the money.

Yes I was aware that legally it was a possibility to sue in these situations – I was more making a comment about the absurdity of it all.
What possible advantage would Chris Mitchell gain in suing her – other than drawing attention to the issue. So the tweet is retracted (well how is that possible) and she publishes an apology on her blog (big frigging deal) – what is she obliged to take out a full page ad in his paper grovelling fulsomely? Does he want money?
Its frigging ridiculous.

clp said :

I don’t know how you can sue for someone quoting someone else.

It depends if the quote was attributed to the original speaker.

If The Australian says ‘Mr Smith is a lying thief’, then John may be able to sue them. If they say ‘Police/Family say Mr Smith is allegedly a lying thief’, you can get away with it.

Its all to do with how you word and attribute it. Also, generally quoting means to repeat the whole thing, at least so that the end of the sentence is in context with the start. If you pick and choose which words from someones sentence, you use to make your own sentence, then you should be held to account.

I do agree that journos shouldnt be able to hide behind technology to get away with what would otherwise be illegal in their job. If defamation is illegal in print, it should be illegal on twitter and for all the twits who use it.

clp said :

I don’t know how you can sue for someone quoting someone else.

A common misconception. The fact someone – anyone – makes an allegation is not a foolproof defence against defamation. Example: A journalist quotes one developer saying another developer is corrupt without putting that allegation to the allegedly dodgy developer and the story goes to print/air along the lines of “X developer is corrupt, according to Y developer” = clearcut defamation win to developer X, in the absence of any solid proof to back it up (being able to prove the truth of an allegation/assertion to the satisfaction of a court will save you).

Twitter raises interesting questions about right of reply. Should Posetti have put the allegation to Mitchell before tweeting? Arguably not, but rest assured if she had been doing a story for the ABC or writing for The Australian her editor would probably have told her to put that allegation to Mitchell before running it, even if it is just a denial.

Going back to the developer example, proving that developer Y made the allegation does not meet the “truth as a defence” test, because it is not that developer Y made the comment alone that is defamatory, it is that the imputation by the media outlet AND developer Y that developer X is corrupt that would be grounds for a lawsuit. Note that developer X could pursue the journalist, the publisher and developer Y for financial restitution in court if he so chose.

Could Mitchell then pursue Twitter for publishing a defamatory (and he would argue false) allegation? Another interesting question. Certainly comments left on online blogs/comments sections such as this one can be defamatory, no doubt why they are moderated. So why not Twitter, in theory?

…since 2006 just being rich and powerful with a grievance doesn’t work any more.

Indeed, one wonders why the rich and powerful allowed such a change to come to pass. Asleep at the wheel?

I don’t care if she makes other journos cringe by offending the Australian.
Her task is not to protect anyone in power from embarrassment, if anything its to report the things that will embarrass them.
The best ‘news’ to report is simply those things that people in power want kept quiet.

(Does this mean her blog is worth reading again? I stopped reading after she stopped updating, I guess she had a kid?)

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Having worked with Posetti (and with apologies to Gareth Evans) I can say that people take an instant dislike to her simply to save time.

And this is relevant to the story, how exactly? I’m not sure how whether or not Ms Posetti is likeable has any bearing at all on what Asa said, what was tweeted, and the Australian’s/Chris Mitchell’s behaviour. There is a bigger story here.

Having worked with Posetti (and with apologies to Gareth Evans) I can say that people take an instant dislike to her simply to save time.

I don’t know how you can sue for someone quoting someone else.

What an over-bearing chap to come over so defensive and sending an email like that. Deomonstrates bullying behaviour by his actions.

Been following the #twitdef conversation in Twitterdom and the facts come down to this. Wahlquist had a whinge about her employer at a conference, journalism academic Posetti tweeted the whiny quote, Chris Mitchell was outraged and sent the lawyers in for defamation. ABC comes out with audio this morning of Wahlquist speaking at the conference confirming the quotes and vindicating Possetti. If the thin skinned, crybaby editor hadn’t overreacted the whole 140 characters would have floated off to wherever old tweets go. I did like the Australian’s quote though “Twitter has become the dunny-door graffiti of the digital age”.

Dammit… I forgot the obvious quote 😀

“Are you informed, or is your news limited?”

From the ABC report, last paragraph: “Indeed, I have not spoken to you in at least eight years. And I have never stood over people writing stories in 19 years as an editor,” [Chris Mitchell] said.

So not only was Chris Mitchell overbearing and meta-editing while Asa Wahlquist was working for The Australian, he’s trying to pull the same nonsense with someone that no longer works for The Australian.

Sorry Chris, you are the droids we’re looking for.