Why are they allowed to publish lies?

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But I agree, this is why journalism is dead. No one cares to check any information. Even down to SpaceX being a total failure is just made up rubbish.

Op-eds and fictional articles have existed for as long as newspapers have existed. All that's happened is that Internet era has removed a lot of money that allowed there to be more of the good and less of the bad.

 

[glide]

Oh I see, in the USA one can push complete BS....great to know...I highly doubt this is actually true and I am sure there is plenty of suing going on when BS is actually published....

Australian Freedom of Speech:
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

I think that's pretty darn good, so why is News.com.au getting away with republishing outright lies? @glide, this is an Australian website I am talking about therefore they are liable for what it publishes irrelevant that someone in the USA wrote it originally.

@glide, are you a Tesla owner?

Yes to both.

It’s an Australian website which linked to an article in a NY, USA newspaper.

If anyone is doing the disservice it is the Australian paper for copy/pasting and omitting the very critical point that it is an opinion piece.

 

[WhiteStar]

I find it ironic that the publication in question is referred to as a ‘newspaper’. You don’t need to visit the website (I did & I’m sorry I did) to understand that there is no news in it...it’s 100% pure guff to put it politely.

 

[lennier]

I find it ironic that the publication in question is referred to as a ‘newspaper’. You don’t need to visit the website (I did & I’m sorry I did) to understand that there is no news in it...it’s 100% pure guff to put it politely.

As with all Murdoch rags.

 

[Chooflaki]

Murdoch’s media know how to dupe watchers and readers to believe opinion pieces are factual news.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

Yep, and if News.com.au (see the .au) is going to re-publish (which they are) they should be bound by Australian laws....plain and simple....we can have opinions here....as long as they can be back up with facts/evidence......

 

[Electroman]

as long as they can be back up with facts/evidence......

You mean I can't publish a "news item", something like, "through reliable reports we learnt Tesla is passing the hat around its employees during lunch time, or Musk is personally walking around the production line with a whip, generously lashing employees who he thinks are slacking..?"

That's outrageous..

 

[EcoCloudIT]

One can easily flip that around @Electroman

I find it interesting all the negative comments are from those that don’t have profile pics and/or their location is simply “USA” and when one looks at the other threads they’re on its things like Telstra asking for cash back from suppliers etc.....things that make you go hmmmn...not satisfied with Seeking Alpha hey?

Got evidence of the whip? Share it and it’s a fact....

@Electroman of course I don’t mean you...I mean “others”...

 

[Electroman]

Got evidence of the whip? Share it and it’s a fact....

WSJ never bothered to share evidence of the memo to the suppliers, but it didn't hesitate to provide its own slanted interpretation of it.