Joanne Lees

Author: Grant

29 May

Umm - who gives a flying-f$%k about “Joanne Lees’s secret lover“? How is this in the public interest? What relevance does it have as news? A friend last night said that she felt the media “had it in for her” from the start - I don’t know how much to make of that, but i definitely don’t understand how her “shocking admission” (as it was referred to on TV) is front page news - it just seems like a media sensationalist beat up. Maybe someone can clue me in?

Filed under: Media & Communications

RSS feed for comments on this post

4 Responses for "Joanne Lees"

Sean May 29th, 2004 at 12:05 pm 1
the media loves a scandal - and they don’t care who they hurt in the process. i agree it’s hardly newsworthy. when it was raised in court, the judge didn’t find it relevant - so why should anyone else? the media loves to play the prosecutor, and they get away with rediculous allegations because there’s no-one to moderate them. except perhaps when it’s the government’s reputation on the line - then it’s a different story.
Dean May 31st, 2004 at 5:19 pm 2
Sounds like a dingo related story from a while back.

Overall the commercial media (in particular) but unfortunately some of the non-commercial media has got to pick up its act. Journalism standards are basically at an all time low.
Simon June 3rd, 2004 at 6:15 am 3
Course it’s relevant … Means/ Motive/ Opportunity. It’s obvious she “could” have done it in the middle of the outback, the “how” is far from obvious without a body, but her knocking off some other fella in Sydney … may not be the “why” but is worth an investigation by the police and the defence surely?

For what its worth I think she didn’t do it as I don’t see what she has to gain from it, but then neither did the commercial media you are bashing.
Grant June 5th, 2004 at 11:20 am 4
The “means/motive/opportunity” argument could be valid, except the “revelations” are coming out at the trial of the alleged killer. With this in mind, the relevence still seems tenuous. It appears to me to be an attempt to sensationalise one particular fact of an entire case simply because of a sexual overtone.

Why have we not heard any other “revelations” from the case splattered across the front page? Why is this part of her testimony such big news? And why is it more important than the news it was hiding behind the front page? That is my question…