Comments on: Media briefs: Oakes v Cave … Nine privacy breach … death shot … http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/12/05/media-briefs-oakes-v-cave-nine-privacy-breach-death-shot/ now with extra source Wed, 22 May 2013 09:57:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: paddy http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/12/05/media-briefs-oakes-v-cave-nine-privacy-breach-death-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-230903 paddy Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:42:47 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=335847#comment-230903 Interesting ethical question for Crikey, as well as the New York Post. Re: publication of a man about to be killed. FWIW I think both publications failed ethics 101. Interesting ethical question for Crikey, as well as the New York Post. Re: publication of a man about to be killed.
FWIW I think both publications failed ethics 101.

]]> By: zut alors http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/12/05/media-briefs-oakes-v-cave-nine-privacy-breach-death-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-230890 zut alors Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:25:09 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=335847#comment-230890 Peter Cave's comments make sense. I'm guessing he entered the five Walkleys thinking he'd reported commendable stories - but when faced with the finalists his private assessment was that four other people had contributed superior work. Nevertheless, he was the victor each time. That shouldn't be puzzling for a clever fellow like Oakes. Peter Cave’s comments make sense. I’m guessing he entered the five Walkleys thinking he’d reported commendable stories - but when faced with the finalists his private assessment was that four other people had contributed superior work. Nevertheless, he was the victor each time.

That shouldn’t be puzzling for a clever fellow like Oakes.

]]>