week2

The discussion is about the media coverage of the Dan Robert Smith verdict, who was found guilty of war crimes. The case has received significant attention due to Smith's status as a war hero. Different media outlets take different approaches to reporting the story. The coverage by the Disney Morning Herald is more focused on the trial and accusations, while Yahoo News highlights sensational aspects. The language used in each article also differs, with SMH using more formal and legal language. The verdict has implications for defamation law and press freedom in Australia. It shows that journalists can report on such cases and stand against defamation lawsuits. It also highlights the challenges and responsibilities of investigative journalism. Overall, the verdict is crucial for freedom of the press and investigative journalism and promotes transparency in the news. Welcome to our roundtable podcast. Today, we will be discussing the media coverage of the Dan Robert Smith verdict, focusing on the reports by the CineMorningHorror and Yahoo News. Dan Robert Smith, a decorated war hero, was found guilty of committing war crimes during his service in Afghanistan. We will explore why this case has featured so prominently in the news media, the differences in coverage between these two outlets, and what his means for defamation law and press freedom in Australia. Joining me today are Austin, Liz, and Thomas. OK, let's start by discussing why this case has raised so much attention in media. Liz, what are your thoughts? Well, I think that the nature of the issue is that Dan Robert Smith is a decorated war hero. So also, the series of this nature of the allegations would raise much attention from the public. Also, the military figures and the implications of war crimes, they would just elevate the worthiness of this news. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. The case is highly significant due to Dan Robert Smith's prominent status as a Victoria Cross recipient. And this stark contrast naturally draws public interest and extensive media coverage. Additionally, the case involves themes of accountability, justice, and the integrity of the military, which are critical public concerns. Yeah, I think you both made really good points. Personally, I think that because the story is so big and expansive, different media outlets can take very different approaches to how they report it. You can report on it from the side of a man being accused. You can report it of a man accusing someone of defamation. And you can also take a look at it of a member of our military committing such heinous crimes against innocent civilians. So I think all these factors make it a very publicly interesting news story. But those are my thoughts on it. Moving on the coverage itself, how do the FMH and Yahoo News reports compare in terms of their objectivity? Let's start with you, Austin. Disney Morning Herald reporting appears to have been more inclined to behavior allegations against Rupert Smith than to give specific balanced coverage of his performance. This style of reporting may have lacked objective and balanced. In contrast, Yahoo News coverage appears more neutral and balanced. It did not promote too much on or question the crimes of other sites. But for previous sentences, the factors are included as objectivity as possible. All right, I think Disney Morning Herald, they focus on the detailed reporting of the trial and the accusations. Also, the broader implications for military conduct and accountability. However, in comparison, Yahoo News coverage just highlights the sensational aspects, such as the tattoo incident and tells a story about how the tattoo sparked the lawsuit. Meanwhile, it also portrays Smith as a victim instead of telling the story in an objective way. It's also worth noting the language used in each article. SMH tends to use more formal and legal language, which might appeal to readers interested in the juridical process. Yahoo News uses more accessible language, marking the story easier to understand for a general audience. Those approaches have their merits depending on the target readership. Yeah, I think, again, both of you put it really well. I do think that Disney Morning Herald was, they were more objective, but it did still feel like they were parading their victory, which I think it's fair for them to do. But also, it felt very much focused on the fact that they won the defamation case, and it felt like it skewed a bit more towards their bias. I don't think it was completely objective, but I definitely agree that it was way more objective than the Yahoo News article. Also, let's discuss what insights the report glorified into defamation law in Australia. Yeah, defamation law is a very, what's the word, gray topic, I guess would be a way to put it, because it's something that is very dependent on context and circumstances. I think this case was very monumental in showing that journalists that it's OK to report on such these things, and it's OK to stand against the defamation lawsuit. Yeah, I think that the Disney Morning Herald article definitely demonstrated that aspect of the story more. It was way, like I mentioned earlier, more focused on the defamation side and looking at how the journalists came out on top and were able to defend their case and were able to achieve something for the journalistic community and anyone who wants to report on news. Well, I think the newspapers, they are inspired to just provide more evidence and witness and testimonies to substantiate their reports. Also, they would aim to prove that their coverage was based on factual information and serve the public interest instead of just telling a story. So for the legal strategy, no, I'm just going to leave that. No, that's it. OK, what are the broader implications of this verdict for freedom of the press and investigative journalism? Like I mentioned earlier, I think it's showing the journalistic community in Australia that it's OK to report on such things and to not be afraid. If someone calls out defamation, if you truly believe in what you've written and you have the evidence to support it, it's more than all right to contest any allegations of defamation. And I think that it really shows the public how trustworthy news can be, because we always hear about how news reports are false and how biased they can be. But I think that with this case, it shows that, yeah, even though some of the details may be obscured or a bit unclear, the press can still write a really good and really compelling story that highlights issues in the world. Yeah, however, it also underscores the challenges and responsibilities of investigative journalism. Media outlets must be meticulous in their research and reporting to defend against defamation claims successfully. Overall, I think the Van Roberts Smith Overall, I think the Van Roberts Smith verdict is a crucial moment for both freedom of the press and investigative journalism in Australia, because it highlights the essential role of the media in exposing these wrongdoings and promoting transparency in the news. It also raises awareness about potential legal risks involved in investigative reporting. Yeah, so it contributes to a more informed society and a brighter future for journalism. Thank you. Thank you.