Publish and be damned?

I don't know. Any newsroom will have its unofficial and anecdotal lists of people who are more likely to sue than others -- it's the folk wisdom of a newsroom collected over time. Everyone knows you're careful around certain property developers, one movie mogul in particular, and so on. This seems to formalise that kind of thinking.

I don't think I was as miffed as Ms Odgers was at having her balloon deflated. She came over and ranted at me, called me a cult leader, accused me of jealousy, etc. It was thrilling.

The document she got was written in March -- or, rather, cut-and-pasted from an information booklet for staff media law training, which I gather was written by Bell Gully and has been in use for some time. So it's not some sudden policy change (indeed, it's not policy at all).

The mildly controversial paragraph advises journalists to "take particular care" with their stories about potentially litigious types. It seems prudent advice, of the kind one might expect from one's editor. It doesn't say don't write the story.

Russell is far too polite to say this, but I think he was also entitled to be a wee bit "miffed" when Ms. Odgers came roaring into the comments on his post, then proceeded to inform him that he doesn't know jack about the industry he's worked in for most of his adult life. As George W. Bush once said, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Troll farm of abuse? Oh dear... anyone who cares can follow the links and decide whether Ms. Odgers is being a little melodramatic. But not for the first time, I marvel at how thin-skinned the most vigorous practitioners of what Auberon Waugh called "the vituperative arts" can be.

Meanwhile, Cathy, both Russell and I have also talked to "industry individuals" who are bemused that you've tried to beat up what reads like a Media Law and Ethics for Dummies digest, into some craven attempt to 'chill' investigative journalism. God knows I've got a mountain of bones to pick with the Herald and its Sunday sister, but this is just silly. And you're more likely to change my mind with a solid argument than bluster.

I love how Russell and his little band of cheer leaders, and it a little band, always turn up and accuse everyone else of what they regularly do.

Russell himself on here now states repeats the assertions of the Herald editor without actually having seen the document concerned. He is playing the Helen Clark line along with Tim Murphy, that there is nothing to see here move along rather vociferously for one who has not even seen the offending document.

Cactus has shown that the document indeed exists, and that contrary to Tim Murphy's previous assertion it was actually written not by Bell Gully but rather by a staffer in APN Sydney. A staffer I might add that Cactus has verified works there.

So rather than Russell's, his ban of cheerleaders and Tim Murphy's assertions that there is nothing to see there in in fact in black and white a policy not print anything that wealthy people may or may not sue them for.

The fact that Tim Murphy reacted so quickly to try and shut the story down is really rather Corporal Jones like. His "Don't panic, Don't Panic" trolling all over various blogs smacked of a desperate attempt to shut down a real story.

As Cactus says for such a non-issue how come on Wednesday evening a full three days after the first post went up it is still being talked about?

There most certainly is something behind this, Otherwise Tim Murphy would have just ignored it and followed damage control 101 which is to ignore. Instead he went straight to PR manual for distraction and obfuscation. If he had ignored the issue i doubt we would have still been talking about it.

Can't wait for day four to start on the issue.

Tim Murphy demonstrates yet again what a total oxygen thief he is. His ongoing modus is to browbeat targets with alleged behaviours - in the pursuit of comment - whilst ignoring actual infractions by his fellow staffers. When it backfires you never get an apology...just an extremely pompous diatribe about press freedom (does he mean the freedom for his staffers to commit in fact that which he alleges as a misbehaviour in his targets). His concept of 'balance' reporting is to have a chip on both shoulders whilst. This cretin will happily P*ss in your pockey and tell you it's raining - plonker!