This was originally my logic as well, but somehow I ended upside down with my pants ripped off and a whole bunch of honey shoved up my rear.
And believe me, bear claws are not meant to go in there.
Now this is a real attempt, to control the media...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
This was originally my logic as well, but somehow I ended upside down with my pants ripped off and a whole bunch of honey shoved up my rear.
And believe me, bear claws are not meant to go in there.
That would be great, if they made any accusations about his intent or actions while in the massage parlor.
They didn't, they haven't broken any laws.
That doesn't make it any less shameless, but it's still not an defamatory act. An officers notes, as far as I'm aware, are not a private document. Which is why they do not need a court order to produce them. They are always included in discovery.
OK, you get a thumbs up for making me lol for real.
Actually the case is closed once they determined there was nothing more to be investigated
therefore, those records are not part of an investigation that never went there fifteen years
ago. If those records are incomplete and go to media from a retired officer, they can be
regarded as a breach of trust. Even worse, if it becomes part of a criminal investigation for
breach of trust, in Canada, there is no way that Sun Media can protect its source, they have
to give it up, failure to do so will constitute other charges.
In that event Layton can then use the Sun Media information to sue them and all those connected
to the story. It becomes a matter of the courts. Layton would have already known where he stood
when he said go ahead. Someone is going to pay big time and my guess is it won't be Layton.
When you decide to go with a story, in a newsroom, you like to make sure you are on some pretty
solid ground not because someone is going to sue you, that comes with the territory, if you lose
your reputation is on the line. It is about pride, money, prestige and future employment opportunities.
I don't think the reporter was evil I think he was stupid, and the editor should have read a little closer
but hey that is my opinion. I have talked to five news people from other media outlets that I know
and all of them told me there is nothing here that is really news worthy it happened in 1996 and lots
of people knew about it.
Knowing how the whole news system works would help people to see the whole picture when a story
comes to light. It is not about covering anything up its about being responsible and not playing into the
games of others, or using something that is old hat with legal implications that have no value for the
story. Stories take a lot of work to get to print or on the ariwaves, and most news people will tell you
this one didn't have legs and had little value and it didn't get much play for that reason.
therefore, those records are not part of an investigation that never went there fifteen years
ago. If those records are incomplete and go to media from a retired officer, they can be
regarded as a breach of trust. Even worse, if it becomes part of a criminal investigation for
breach of trust, in Canada, there is no way that Sun Media can protect its source, they have
to give it up, failure to do so will constitute other charges.
In that event Layton can then use the Sun Media information to sue them and all those connected
to the story. It becomes a matter of the courts. Layton would have already known where he stood
when he said go ahead. Someone is going to pay big time and my guess is it won't be Layton.
When you decide to go with a story, in a newsroom, you like to make sure you are on some pretty
solid ground not because someone is going to sue you, that comes with the territory, if you lose
your reputation is on the line. It is about pride, money, prestige and future employment opportunities.
I don't think the reporter was evil I think he was stupid, and the editor should have read a little closer
but hey that is my opinion. I have talked to five news people from other media outlets that I know
and all of them told me there is nothing here that is really news worthy it happened in 1996 and lots
of people knew about it.
Knowing how the whole news system works would help people to see the whole picture when a story
comes to light. It is not about covering anything up its about being responsible and not playing into the
games of others, or using something that is old hat with legal implications that have no value for the
story. Stories take a lot of work to get to print or on the ariwaves, and most news people will tell you
this one didn't have legs and had little value and it didn't get much play for that reason.
You're about to shoot yourself in he foot...
Than it was public knowledge. Not actionable.
All they did was confirm it, and report it, sans allegations of impropriety.
I'd be willing to bet the house that this goes nowhere.
Really?
well, I see Bear has managed to scare the crap out of you. Not all of us shyte our pants so easily when he says "boo" though.
What it comes down to is...... Layton has every right to sue. If the paper is in the right, then they have nothing to worry about. No muzzling will have taken place. If they are in the wrong, then they will get their asses sued, their pee pee's slapped and again, no muzzling will have taken place.
What we have here, is more fear mongering from the anti Layton crowd.
Now that is just silly. Since I was a little girl, my parents always told me "Don't fear the bears".
Wait, what? Oh, really? Don't feed the bears.
Nevermind.
Carry on.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on "the fifth estate". Choking the flow of information is always a problem. It's a matter of principle.
I'm not talking about the Afghan papers. I'm talking about a gag order on officials in Afghanistan during an election. The Canadian Press requested an interview with Tim Martin, our top diplomat in Kandahar. The request wasn't unreasonable, it was for a story about a transfer-of-command ceremony that took place at Camp Nathan Smith.
This was a major milestone, we were handing over command of our training center to the Afghan authorities.
That's when an official from Canadian International Development Agency rejected the request, saying that there would be no interviews during the five week campaign.
Because the paper is behind a pay-wall. You have to pay for articles published in Science, or go to a library with a subscription. I can access a whole range of journals at work through our subscriptions, but not everyone can. And almost certainly not everyone will understand the gobble-dee-gook of marine biology/immunology/molecular biology that leads to such a finding. So science writers go to the authors for clarification, to write the story so that lay readers can understand the significance.
If they are denied access to the author, that is stifling the press. That is not only an attack on the press, it is an attack on the fundamental here, of an informed citizenry.
Ahhh, Florida, home to dangling body parts for decades.It makes me think of older folks in Florida.
Shudder.
Shudder.
Shudder.
Like Kirkland Lake, it's where old farts go to die.
Rolls off the tongue like a sour peach.