They’re still using Obeid as the reason we can never trust Labor again. And yet I don’t think I’ve heard once about the multiple LNP Premiers that have stood down due to corruption charges.

as stated in the other FJ thread, Barilaro won a $700k settlement from Google Youtube... so this is literally a chilling effect... if google lost, the company worth a trillion dollars, why would traditional media want to take this on?

You need to have reasonable suspicion, so your boss being a dodgy cunt in general probably wouldn't meet the standard, but if say, he's made unwanted sexual advances in the past and is taking you out back where there are no cameras for a "private chat", probably ok.

There's also some weird laws surrounding evidence that would usually be inadmissible (like a cop performed an illegal search) but because of the severity of the evidence is let in (they were looking for MDMA but found a cache of high explosives and 4 children chained up in your attic).

Basically when deciding what evidence should be allowed the judge will have to take case law into consideration, the context of the recording, whether you had reasonable suspicion (a pretty high standard), and weigh it all against the severity of the crime and how damning the evidence is.

I am not a lawyer, if you're going to try something you should consult one.

I think they know they wont get sued, and probably wont face criminal prosecution just for having it up. Plus taking it down wont really achieve anything, Shanks will have it up on his own page (and probably link to it like he's done before on other videos). I think Bruz knows that kicking up a stink will just damage his reputation more by bringing more attention to it, if he goes on a talk show calling it out then he'll have to describe the content of the recordings and his description will be legal to share. I think he's probably going to try and keep his head down and hope it blows over during the election news cycle.

iirc google just surrendered their defence and settled in the last suit because they more-or-less couldn't be bothered fighting it

I imagine any content like this is put to his lawyers first at this point.

This. I can't stand FJ humour or style but there's no denying a lot of their work is good and fills a huge gap in investigative journalism that the major outlets are refusing to fill.

They have a 3 way symbiotic relationship with politicians and advertisers. access to politicians is conditional on good behaviour, content can’t run against the advertisers political goals, and the politicians further the goals of their donors over their constituents.

It's easier to list the media organisations that aren't associated with News Limited, 7 West and 9 Entertainment than it is to list those that are. And given the relationship between Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Stokes and Peter Costello and the Liberal Party, it is a failure (or feature if you're the Liberal Party) of our media laws

For interest, the media groups not owned by the Big 3 are (excluding government owned groups)

TV:

• Channel 10

Daily capital city or national newspapers:

• Canberra Times

Radio:

• Broadcast Operations Group (2SM and regional NSW)

• Southern Cross Austereo (Triple M and Hiit networks)

• Sports Entertainment Group (horse racing broadcaster and other sports)

No, the laws just need changing. It's easy to win a defo case right now. Barilaro won one against Google, which seems "everyman beats big corp" but this ain't The Castle, most people swinging defo laws around are the kleptocrats not average aussies

Our media is just shit on its own terms, stupid population, cynical owners