A subscriber writes:

I find it difficult to believe that “the question buzzing in legal circles today was: how much did The Tele’s three stories add to Rodney Adler’s jail sentence”.

particular legal circles can’t be all that well-informed. The Adler
judgment would have been typed and printed by yesterday at the latest.
It ran to 72 paragraphs – hardly something the Judge could have dashed
off over breakfast after flipping through the Telegraph .

Quite apart from the logistical impossibility that the Judge could have been influenced by today’s stories in TheTelegraph
, it really is fanciful to suggest that a Supreme Court judge would
really take into account a tabloid news story in deciding a sentence. I
once worked as an Associate to a Supreme Court judge. It may seem hard
to believe amid the skullduggery of politics and business, but judges
(especially in the higher Courts) do take their responsibilities
seriously and wouldn’t let this sort of stuff influence them.

Point taken, though it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the
larger issues of Adler’s disastrous mishandling of his PR campaign
throughout the trial did have some impact on the judge’s thinking.

Media Watch doesn’t follow Crikey all the time

Dear Crikey,

I think it’s sweet that Glenn Dyer imagines that Media Watch is “inspired” by Crikey, but none of this week’s stories originated from Crikey (or The Australian’s Media section).

stories do originate from other outlets we try to cite them. We have
our own sources, our own opinions and our own viewers, so we don’t drop
an issue just because it’s been mentioned in Crikey.

Peter McEvoy
Executive Producer
Media Watch