Live data from Hacker News

Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

bbc.co.uk

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#11
post #4

Reminds me of this crazy clusterfuck unfolding in San Francisco: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

Wow. How is this not bigger news? I'm on the East Coast and it's the first I'm hearing of it but perhaps someone nearer to SF can comment on whether it's being widely discussed?

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#12

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

I don't see this, or many other examples, as journalists acting like they are above the law, or as a normal criminal investigation.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#13

Why are the BBC quoting the BBC's opinion on this? Are the BBC making a political opinion statement about the police in another country? The BBC have always loved to report about themselves and often literally interview themselves. It's not unusual for them to report about their own report of an interview between themselves and one of their own executives. But this is become really bizarre now.

What would you think about their transparency and impartiality if they didn't report on a story they're involved in? That's why.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#14
post #4

Reminds me of this crazy clusterfuck unfolding in San Francisco: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

They look different to me. Australia is flexing its anti-speech authority, asserting the power to control what its subjects are allowed to talk about. My hometown cops are engaged in a much more quotidian abuse of power.

Which is not to say ransacking Carmody's place wasn't egregious - it was. Watching the circular firing squad composed of the Mayor, the police chief and the cop-union attack dog just leaves me rooting for injuries.

But ultimately it is a stupidity eruption caused by the cops' arrogant attempts to control their own (garbage) reputation. Our cops are criminals, but not part of a national strategy to shut down speech.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#15

Reminds me of the Guradian being intimidated over the Snowden leaks by being forced to drill through their harddrives: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

To be fair, working at a medical billing company standard practice was zero out drive, then drill. It was far less secret than that too

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#16

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

Everyone seems to get lost in the nuance.

It really does matter what is being published.

You can't go ahead and publish for example the locations of US ballistic missile sites and say 'hey, freedom of expression'.

The real problem lies where information is considered classified, but at the same time, there's a legit case to be made for whistle blowing.

I don't think Manning's leaks actually constitute whistle blowing, and while much of Snowden's data certainly did, a lot of the other data definitely did not, ergo there's possibility for real crime there.

Agree or disagree with that - it's basically going to be up to the journalist to have to decided if it's truly whistle blowing or not, which can only be found in courts at a later date.

So it's a tough one.

It's also tough to establish in 2019 who constitutes 'journalist'.

I wish there were a system we could put in place for this.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#17

Why are the BBC quoting the BBC's opinion on this? Are the BBC making a political opinion statement about the police in another country? The BBC have always loved to report about themselves and often literally interview themselves. It's not unusual for them to report about their own report of an interview between themselves and one of their own executives. But this is become really bizarre now.

An opinion is not an article. A news organization may report an opinion, factually, as part of an article, if it is relevant, even if the source of the opinion is themselves. It makes perfect sense to me.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#19

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

I'm pretty amazed that people on this forum are so quick to jump on the side of an authoritarian right-wing government over press freedom.

What a misguided comment. There are no "sides" here. Unless you think that any criticism of journalistic practices puts me on "the other team". Grow up!

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#20
post #13

Why are the BBC quoting the BBC's opinion on this? Are the BBC making a political opinion statement about the police in another country? The BBC have always loved to report about themselves and often literally interview themselves. It's not unusual for them to report about their own report of an interview between themselves and one of their own executives. But this is become really bizarre now.

What would you think about their transparency and impartiality if they didn't report on a story they're involved in? That's why.

They should let other people report on stories that involve themselves, obviously.
Post reply on HN