Hot topics click link for more
It is wholly normal - even expected - when plaintiffs’ lawyers in civil disputes run roughshod with logic and language. At times it can seem they are on separate subjects. Criminal complaints have different, more robust constraints.
As dedicated Murdoch watchers know, there is currently an interesting defamation case being heard in Australia. Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of Rupert, has brought a lawsuit against Private Media, publisher of the small but popular online magazine Crikey. Mr. Murdoch and Crikey waged a quite loud publicity row until the former filed the defamation claim against the later. The case is currently being heard and noted everywhere. (See more about defamation law here)
Counsel for Mr. Murdoch opened arguments last week (October 21) claiming a column appearing in Crikey defamed Mr. Murdoch, also Fox Corporation executive chairperson, with the opinion that he “illegally conspired with (former US president) Donald Trump to incite” the January 6 Capital riots. While many in the free world might agree that Fox News, the US cable TV outlet principally owned by the Murdoch family, may have given aid and comfort, “incitement” is a specific legal term. (See more about Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and Fox Corp here)
Private Media, for Crikey, is arguing a separate track, noted Nine Entertainment lawyer Sam White in The Sydney Morning Herald (October 24). Its lawyers are fixed on testing the “public interest” defence inscribed in Australian law fifteen months ago meant to correct deficiencies in codes on defamation. All Australian publishers supported those reforms, which make bringing frivolous defamation cases more difficult. (See more about media in Australia here)
The Private Media filing argued the publisher “reasonably believed ... the publication of the matter was in the public interest.” Lawyer for Mr. Murdoch, Sue Chrysanthou, attempted to blunt that legal strategy as “not going to happen,” by having any mention of “public interest” stricken from the filing. Alas, Federal Judge Michael Wigney ruled the paragraphs in question “potentially relevant.” Court proceedings will continue next week.
Broadcasters are always sensitive to audience estimates. This has only escalated as non-traditional channels are added to the ratings mix. Add to that a general resistance to participating in surveys. Results - rather logically - are subject to wild swings or, more often, inconvenient shifts.
Several major Portuguese TV broadcasters recently pushed complaints about audience estimates. The charge was “tampering” with the numbers. As a result the Portuguese Judicial Police (Polícia Judiciária) conducted a search (October 11) at the facilities of GfK, the world-wide market researcher contracted to provide metered TV audience measurement for a decade. A confidential complaint had been lodged in June last year with the Attorney General’s Office. TV measurement in Portugal is organized by the joint-industry committee, CAEM, which sets criteria and organizes provider selection. (See more about media in Portugal here)
Broadcasters fell all over themselves denying any roll in the complaint against GfK, usually majors blaming each other. "It is completely false and meaningless the accusation made by Grupo Impresa and SIC that there was bad faith on the part of TVI,” said a Media Capital statement (October 11). "Like the rest of the market,” said the Grupo Impresa statement (October 11), “except, apparently, TVI, we rely on the audience measurement system in force, something that happened even during the years when SIC was not audience leader.” (See more about media measurement here)
Not wanting to be in the middle of this, the CAEM “repeated its confidence in the suitability and credibility of the audience measurement system in force and in the importance of strengthening its stability.” Also standing aside was the Portuguese Association of Advertisers (APAN). "The results and GfK deserve the trust of advertisers,” said its statement, quoted by media news portal Meios & Publicidade (October 19).
Not to be missed in all this is the march to prominence of CMTV, the cable news channel owned by Cofina, publisher of popular daily tabloid Correio da Manhã. “We know that the panel does not fully represent the real consumption of television, because it continues to inflate the consumption of free to air to the detriment of cable,” said editorial director Carlos Rodrigues to Meios & Publicidade (October 24). “All these weaknesses in the system come from the relationship of forces that established within the CAEM. Now, to whom do these weaknesses benefit? I don’t think to anyone.”
|
