Hi James, this is another question: There is a website at…

I said "Hi James", can you allow James to answer this question please ?

I am interested in that if the owner of the website would have legal responsibility or if the people that upload the information would have it. Would saying that a newspaper article was biased damage their reputation ? And how to completely PROVE that it is true or not ?

Hi James, could you look at this question please ?

So the key to avoid lawsuits is saying in the website “All information published here are opinions and not statements of facts, do not assume the opinions said here are true but form your own opinion reading all the information” ?

For example, this newspaper article presented bias:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-corp-bias-against-kevin-rudd-showed-up-in-independent-study-diary-reveals-20131106-2x1ig.html
saying “News Corp bias against Kevin Rudd showed up in independent study, diary reveals”, so they are making a statement of fact not an opinion. But then it says “It found that Mr Rudd was subject to "unfavourable" reporting in The Daily Tele-graph”, could that also be the key for the success of the website: saying in the title “biased” but in the content saying “unfavourable” or something like that ? I mean: is that a matter of which words to choose ?

If the website says this:
“I think that X news article is biased because it did not analysed the opposing points of view”
Or this:
“I think that Y new article was written in a way that gives a different impression to the readers than what the facts that are presented mean”
Could that be defamatory ?

And about: the truth is a defence against a claim for defamation. How can you say if it is TRUE or NOT TRUE if a newspaper was biased on its reporting ? This is different than saying that a journalist is a thief, you can prove if that is true or not, but about bias, how ?

And if the website presents images of newspaper articles that are analysed, could that be a violation of copyrights laws ?

If the owner of the website is sued for saying that some newspaper article was biased,what could be the penalty ? a fine ? or going to jail ? And if the website is owned by a not for profit company and fined for a lot of money, can the company be declared in bankruptcy and the owner not needing to pay the fine ?

And about spin: saying
“I think this leaflet produced by the government is spin because the details contradict the slogans said in it”
Or
“I think this speech by a government officer is spin because in my opinion X, Y and Z actions taken by the government contradict that speech”
, could that be defamatory ? How can you say if is TRUE or NOT TRUE spin ?

Thank you

I have increased the price of this question because I have asked you more questions. (This is the last, no more questions).

___________________________________________

Which could be the easiest way to set this up ?

I was reading about the creation of not-for-profit companies and it seems to be a difficult process.

- company limited by guarantee ? looks difficult because it requires 3 directors.

- Incorporated associations ? looks difficult because it requires 5 members

- unincorporated association ?

- trust ?

How about creating an unincorporated association called "Media watch" (to put an example of a name), registering the name "Media watch" in the ASIC, creating a website, an that's all, no more. Good idea or bad idea ?

Or would it be better to create a trust instead ?

Yes, planning to team up with others but the others may not have too much time to spend on Media watch. And in the future, when people see the work done, more people could join it and those other people could have more time.

It could be a charity but there seems to be too much paperwork and too expensive, and it seem to be useless to be formed as a charity because the only benefit seems to be tax exemptions but "Media watch" wouldn't use too much money.
The charitable purpose would be ‘beneficial to the general public’ (a general category).