Talk:Adam Walters

Is it valid to refer to Walters as a journalist? Newtaste (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

David Campbell section

It's not clear to me why the David Campbell section has the comments from Kristina Keneally there. This is an article about Adam Walters, not about David Campbell. All other sentences relate in some direct way to Adam Walters' reporting of the story and the dispute over the "public interest" justification; that sentence does not. If Walters or someone else at Seven did in fact use the possibility of blackmail as part of the "public interest" justification for the story, then there should be a cited statement explaining or showing how that justification was used. 128.250.5.245 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The David Campbell outing was instigated by Adam Walters. The ramifications that followed are part of a chain of events that was set off by his original story. Therefore, the ramifications are part of Adam Walters' story, and should be included in this article.124.168.164.76 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

The David Campbell section appears to me to be a clear case of a concern as to whether it truly reflects a neutral point of view. Prior to my most recent edit, three-quarters of the section was devoted to support for Walters, including a large slab of text relating to and quoting from a single former politician. This is not representative of the fact this story has taken up a large amount of media oxygen, that Walters' report attracted - whether deserved or not - a great deal of controversy, and that his reportage was objected to by numerous media commentators, journalists and public figures from across the political spectrum.

Moreover, an influential article critical of Walters has been removed twice on unsubstantiated grounds that the statement is "libellous" and "poorly sourced". The defamation angle has never been discussed or shown on this talk page, and it was correctly sourced with full referencing information. I have reinstated the statements regarding Andrew Crook's article, and would invite contributors who dispute it to explain exactly why it should not be on the page. This is a necessary step to prevent edit-warring and to ensure that the reasons for potentially contentious choices about the article's development are made clear rather than hidden in unlabelled reverts or abrupt one-line descriptions. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments of former Labor Premier Barrie Unsworth were published in a national newspaper, and subsequently quoted during the debate over the Campbell story. The concern "as to whether it truly reflects a neutral point of view" is far from clear, and involves the same subjectivity as contrary opinion. The notion of neutrality seems spurious in a debate involving two opposing sides.

The article to which Cyril Washbrook refers clearly fits within Wikipedia's definition of defamation: Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]

The Crikey article quotes unnamed "sources" making highly offensive, unsubstantiated remarks, and by virtue of their anonymity one can only assume the "sources" are anxious to avoid litigation, but potentially the publishers could be no less culpable for the publication of the same defamatory imputations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxstraight (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello user:Faxstraight. You wouldn't be Adam Walters would you? The points in question are not defamatory. They have been previously published by other publications, and the text of the Wikipedia does not state that those opinions and quotes are fact, but instead attributes the quotes as being from those other sources. The issue about Walters' reporting the misuse of a ministerial car as a fig leaf cover for running the story was made by numerous commentators. Wikipedia has quoted one. But if you worry about it coming from just one source, it would be an easy task to find more publications that said similar things. If more are added, I think they should be attributed to their sources in the article text. While the quotes from commentators are not praising of Walters, it is certainly not defamatory to quote and attribute them here. However, if you wish, you can find and add praiseworthy quotes from other known sources to balance what exists.Pigmypossum (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has become ludicrous. The first paragraph is devoted entirely to material supporting Walters' justifications for the story. The second paragraph starts off with a critique of Walters' story, at which point the editor has decided to make his own interpretation of Salusinszky's remarks and use that interpretation to spend even longer rebutting Salusinszky. This is against Wikipedia's policy against original research by editors. More generally, if you actually reorganise the section to work out which parts are criticising Walters and which parts are supporting him, there are approximately 282 words in support of Walters and 134 criticising him. That's an imperfect method of assessment, but it highlights the very obvious point-of-view problems here. In line with WP:OR, I have removed the original research in the section, but that doesn't come close to resolving the very real problems with this article. 118.209.26.108 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing of this article regarding David Campbell

The history of this article suggests clearly that there has been a concerted effort by certain contributors to skew this article, by systematically and unilaterally deleting passages that contain (cited) criticisms or critiques of the report in question. I believe that the same motivations may have brought about an editor's unilateral decision to delete the entire contents of this talk page, which I have since restored.

The consequence is that a well-cited passage containing criticism from relevant public figures has mysteriously vanished, leaving only a long paragraph containing an unusually long quote from a single individual in favour of the reporting, and an even longer (and incorrectly cited) passage about ACMA's decision.

Regardless of what individual contributors think about the David Campbell issue, it was plain to see that the report sparked a considerable amount of criticism. Reading the article as it currently stands, the average reasonable person would wonder why the section title contains the word "controversy", since the only views put forward are those that cast a favourable light on Walters. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The notion that the neutrality of this page is questionable is completely groundless in light of the findings by the independent Australian Telecommunications and Media Authority published by the Sun-Herald newspaper in January 2011. ACMA upheld Seven's insistence that the original story was in the public interest. Cyril Washbrook is a contributor to an internet gossip site known as Media Spy, and he pedals, as an apparent hobby, mistruth, speculation and innuendo under the cover of a pseudonym. His blogging on Media Spy makes no attempt to conceal his personal opinions of the journalist. In light of his concealed identity he has no right to question the veracity of sources and the credibility of references. The David Campbell story was reported as an "outing" by those critics of the story who chose to overlook the views of the former Premier Barrie Unsworth and those who prefer to ignore the findings of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which found Channel Seven was not in breach of the broadcasting code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carionmen (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)