MadMarcus
Toovey for NRL CEO
Dear Media Watch
I have been a long time viewer of your program.
I wanted to bring to your attention (if you are not aware of it already) the disgraceful reporting around the sexual assault charges made against Manly rugby league player Brett Stewart in March 2009. There is plenty woefully inaccurate material still online.
One of the most disturbing pieces of 'journalism' is this one by Josh Massoud and Paul Kent (http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25164758-23214,00.html). This was sprawled across the front and back pages of News Ltd's Daily Telegraph at the time and is still appearing on New Ltd's Fox Sports website over 18 months after being published, despite containing allegations not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart. The headline, despite starting with the words 'Stewart claims...' is in fact the complete opposite of what Stewart testified in Court (which was obviously deemed credible evidence by the jury), and the article goes on to make many assertions which were not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart. There was no 'crash tackle'. He did not have to be 'pulled off the girl'. There were no 'onlookers', shocked or otherwise.
Another piece of drivel which deserves a mention is this effort from Jacqueline Magnay (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/inside-the-boardroom-how-club-leadership-ignored-gallops-pleas-20091123-j1ae.html). Deceptive phrasing from Magnay makes it appear that there is web camera footage of the assault taken by a neighbour. In this other article (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/new-evidence--police-seize-neighbours-video-of-stewart-ruckus-20091123-izvc.html), which appeared in the SMH on the same day, it is clear that the footage was in fact of the confrontation between Stewart and the girl's father. There was no footage of the alleged assault (well there wouldn't be, because it never happened).
I understand that journalists can't produce 100% accurate stories 100% of the time, but surely where a story has the capacity to cause irreprable damage to a person's reputation like this story has had on Stewart's reputation, the organlsiation who proposes to publish the story has a duty to ensure that it is based on a sound foundation. The stories certainly haven't done the girl, who suffers from a mental illness, any favours either.
In these cases it seems that, at best, the journalists negligently relied on unnamed and unreliable sources, without a care in the world for the impact their actions might have on Stewart or the girl. At worst, they simply made their stories up. Perhaps it was naive of me to think that the Daily Telegraph was slightly more credible than New Idea. The NRL's role in siding with the media and suspending Stewart for 4 weeks shouldn't go unnoticed either, particularly given that they are half owned by News Ltd, who is responsible for publishing half this rubbish.
Many of these 'journalists' have been unusually quiet since Stewart's not guilty verdict was handed down. Many people to this day still believe he might have done it. Stewart will have to live with that for the rest of his life. It is only right that the finding of NOT GUILTY handed down by a jury of Stewart's peers in September 2010 is reported as widely and as forcefully as the finding of GUILTY handed down by the media in March 2009.
Kind regards
I have been a long time viewer of your program.
I wanted to bring to your attention (if you are not aware of it already) the disgraceful reporting around the sexual assault charges made against Manly rugby league player Brett Stewart in March 2009. There is plenty woefully inaccurate material still online.
One of the most disturbing pieces of 'journalism' is this one by Josh Massoud and Paul Kent (http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25164758-23214,00.html). This was sprawled across the front and back pages of News Ltd's Daily Telegraph at the time and is still appearing on New Ltd's Fox Sports website over 18 months after being published, despite containing allegations not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart. The headline, despite starting with the words 'Stewart claims...' is in fact the complete opposite of what Stewart testified in Court (which was obviously deemed credible evidence by the jury), and the article goes on to make many assertions which were not even made by the Crown in the case against Stewart. There was no 'crash tackle'. He did not have to be 'pulled off the girl'. There were no 'onlookers', shocked or otherwise.
Another piece of drivel which deserves a mention is this effort from Jacqueline Magnay (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/inside-the-boardroom-how-club-leadership-ignored-gallops-pleas-20091123-j1ae.html). Deceptive phrasing from Magnay makes it appear that there is web camera footage of the assault taken by a neighbour. In this other article (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/new-evidence--police-seize-neighbours-video-of-stewart-ruckus-20091123-izvc.html), which appeared in the SMH on the same day, it is clear that the footage was in fact of the confrontation between Stewart and the girl's father. There was no footage of the alleged assault (well there wouldn't be, because it never happened).
I understand that journalists can't produce 100% accurate stories 100% of the time, but surely where a story has the capacity to cause irreprable damage to a person's reputation like this story has had on Stewart's reputation, the organlsiation who proposes to publish the story has a duty to ensure that it is based on a sound foundation. The stories certainly haven't done the girl, who suffers from a mental illness, any favours either.
In these cases it seems that, at best, the journalists negligently relied on unnamed and unreliable sources, without a care in the world for the impact their actions might have on Stewart or the girl. At worst, they simply made their stories up. Perhaps it was naive of me to think that the Daily Telegraph was slightly more credible than New Idea. The NRL's role in siding with the media and suspending Stewart for 4 weeks shouldn't go unnoticed either, particularly given that they are half owned by News Ltd, who is responsible for publishing half this rubbish.
Many of these 'journalists' have been unusually quiet since Stewart's not guilty verdict was handed down. Many people to this day still believe he might have done it. Stewart will have to live with that for the rest of his life. It is only right that the finding of NOT GUILTY handed down by a jury of Stewart's peers in September 2010 is reported as widely and as forcefully as the finding of GUILTY handed down by the media in March 2009.
Kind regards