Walkley Awards to review Nine News win
Updated: Walkleys to review Award for Television / Video News 2022 win following profile defamation case.
- Published by David Knox
- on
The Walkley Foundation will launch a review into a previous award to Nine News for a report which was at the centre of a profile defamation case instigated by former politician Dr. Andrew Laming.
The Walkley Foundation notes that in Federal Court of Australia defamation proceedings commenced by Dr Andrew Laming against the Nine Network, Nine issued the following apology to Dr Laming:
Apology to Dr Laming
On 27 March 2021, 9News Queensland broadcast a report about Dr Laming who was at the time a member of Federal Parliament.
Serious allegations were made about Dr Laming in that report and he sued Nine because of it.
9News has now seen material which indicates that the photograph Dr Laming took was not lewd in nature.
9News unreservedly withdraws those allegations about Dr Laming and apologises to him and his family for the hurt and harm caused by the report.
The proceedings have otherwise settled on confidential terms.
The Walkley Foundation Directors have resolved to commission an independent review of the awarding of the 2021 Walkley Award for Television / Video News Reporting to Peter Fegan and Rebeka Powell.
The Walkley Foundation has given awards to recognise Australian journalism since 1956, and regularly reviews its processes. The review of this particular award will be conducted by individuals with no connection to the work under examination.
The story was also a big winner at Queensland’s Clarion Awards.
Update: The Walkley Foundation has withdraw an award after Nine News withdrew allegations and apologised to former Liberal National MP Andrew Laming.
Share
- Tagged with Nine News, Walkley Awards
7 Responses
I think they should be stripped of it.
Very embarrassing for all the journalists and organisations that had to backflip and retract. It seemed to be politically motivated rather than a mistake.
In my opinion journalistic standards have become more like clickbait in recent times, the sensational bold headline is more important than the actual story itself, which can seem more subjective than factual. The assurance that some media outlets interpret the news the best can be misleading as some columnists write to support the prejudices or political ideology of their readers and followers. There have been numerous instances in recent times of the media negatively focusing attention on elite public figures and politicians to ruin their careers, but it’s doubtful that financial whacks across the knuckles of these media organisations who employ controversial and sometimes inept journalists will make bad journalism stop or better still make these organisations more accountable for their actions,
I don’t think we would refer to Nine News as clickbait. ACA gets tabloid sometimes, or even 60 Mins on occasions, but not sure this was clickbait.
I was referring mostly to tabloid newspaper articles and syndicated columnists paid for by companies like News Corp, this content can be described in some cases as being clickbait intended to attract revenue from embedded advertising. In my opinion it can also be alleged that ACA do have some history interpreting controversial news stories to suit its own commercial interests, as is also the case for their FTA TV news service competition as well, and I must include the ABC, whose own journalistic standards have slipped lately with litigation payouts.
I’m glad we have strong defamation laws in this country. The media claim that freedom of the press is paramount but too many mastheads/TV shows/websites strive for the cheap headline and click bait without a care for a person’s reputation. Defaming people is not in the public interest.
Maybe they should recreate the scene from that episode of Fraser when he tries to shame Bulldog for accepting an award he didn’t deserve. imdb.com/title/tt0582349/