We are now on day four of the “Nothing to see here folks” story of the internal directives at APN telling staff and contributers who they should and should not be writing about and we are still talking about it. …

Christian networked blog M&M’s h…

“There are categories of people more inclined to sue…..”

It was deemed here that Granny’s estate or her family isn’t wealthy enough to sue for damages through the courts for her privacy and dignity being invaded. They weren’t deemed worthy of…

As for Anon’s comment, “Mainstream media is a big industry, money rules integrity, what do ya expect?”

I expect integrity.

If standards slip it does not follow that we should simply drop our expectations.
.-= My last blog-post ..The NZ Herald on Cactus Kate and Priorities in Journalism Ethics =-.

I will use a religious example on this blog.

It’s kind of like being a Priest and told by the Church you cannot be in the company of little boys because you might get sued by their rich parents, not for committing an offence but looking like you might offend. But it’s fine to be in the company of little boys with poor parents and doing what you wish as they cannot afford to sue you.

Of course now it reads even worse doesn’t it?

I agree that it is very sad that the last resort in the legal protection of one’s reputation becomes the first resort consideration in their guideline.

It is sad if writers are thinking more about avoiding being sued, than they are about actual integrity and respect for the individual that they are writing about. It is interesting how priorities and reasons become skewed, and people forget the original intention/purpose of anti-defamatory etc legislation.