Sam Newman, Garry Lyon face Supreme Court grilling in Susan Alberti defamation suit

[aker39]

Sam Newman, Garry Lyon face Supreme Court grilling in Susan Alberti defamation suit

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26275408-421,00.html

THE Footy Show stars Sam Newman and Garry Lyon face a Supreme Court grilling in a dramatic defamation trial brought against them and Channel 9.

The Herald Sun can reveal Western Bulldogs director Susan Alberti will confront the pair in a 10-day hearing from November 16.

The trial extends from an infamous 2008 Footy Show segment where Newman manhandled a lingerie-clad mannequin in a send-up of prominent footy journalist Caroline Wilson.

Dr Alberti was among a group of senior female AFL figures who wrote a letter of complaint to Nine bosses condemning the stunt.

The group called for The Footy Show cast to be counselled on their attitude towards women.

Signatories included AFL club board members, Sally Capp (Collingwood), Beverly Knight (Essendon), Lynn Ralph (Sydney), Sue Nattrass (Melbourne) and Janine Allis (Hawthorn).

But co-host Lyon publicly questioned the letter's credibility, alleging Ms Capp had said she did not want her name included. He also said that Dr Alberti had bought two tables in The Footy Show audience after the Newman skit.

Newman also weighed in, describing the group of AFL women as "liars and hypocrites". The former Geelong star went on to query the role of women in football-related matters.

"They serve very little purpose at board level. What do they do?" Newman said.

In a writ filed with the Supreme Court, Dr Alberti, a prominent businesswoman, alleges Channel 9 had defamed her.

She has engaged a high-powered legal team led by Will Houghton, QC, and is seeking damages and aggravated damages.

The network will argue that Newman and Lyon's comments were honestly held opinion based on "substantially true" facts.

Wilson has since accepted an apology from Nine.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Not a fan of Newman at the best of times, but I can't say I have much time for Alberti either. Seems to take everything as a personal attack and I can't stand women who constantly bang on about women's rights. The majority have respect for her/them, hence her position on the board. Obviously this is only touching the surface of a much larger issue, but from my perspective Alberti seems as though she's always trying to find ways to gain 'compensation'.

Wilson had far more right to be angered and if she took action, I could understand. However - she accepted an apology and got on with it.

[The Underdog]

Not a fan of Newman at the best of times, but I can't say I have much time for Alberti either. Seems to take everything as a personal attack and I can't stand women who constantly bang on about women's rights. The majority have respect for her/them, hence her position on the board. Obviously this is only touching the surface of a much larger issue, but from my perspective Alberti seems as though she's always trying to find ways to gain 'compensation'.

Wilson had far more right to be angered and if she took action, I could understand. However - she accepted an apology and got on with it.

I'll agree with you on one point which I've extended to its logical conclusion. Newman is a prize clown. His ego stands in the way of any sort of sense or reason and his willingness to be ignorant on matters both on the football field and off shows him to be a prime example of the old saying, "better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it". To be honest though, the audience who panders to him are probably as culpable as he is.

As for women who bang on about women's right's, maybe if we didn't have to read in the newspaper about teenage girls being pack raped by teenage boys, then they wouldn't have to, but things change slowly and some people take a while to get the message.
I'd also like to note that Ms Alberti's ability to fund raise has ended up in a lot of money in the coffers of the football team she loves.
I also imagine the issue in this case is less about dollars and more about taking a stand against a show which purports to be about football (I'd say it's more about ego's and sensationalism, it's certainly not about analysis of football) and often pays lip service to women and their role in the game without ever really treating them seriously and in the case of Newman being openly patronising.

As for Caro, well she did take the apology and got on with it, but without seeming like a conspiracy theorist, she's also a Channel 9 employee, hardly a good base from which to take a true stand.

[Murphy'sLore]

Hear hear Underdog, couldn't agree more. I'm with Ms Alberti all the way, mind you I don't know what it will take to make Sam Newman take a long hard look at himself, he seems to be an irredeemable tool.

It's good to see someone say on behalf of all the women in footy, we're mad as hell and we won't take it any more. Caro is not in a position to do it as she depends on these clowns for her livelihood.

[LostDoggy]

Not a fan of Newman at the best of times, but I can't say I have much time for Alberti either. Seems to take everything as a personal attack and I can't stand women who constantly bang on about women's rights. The majority have respect for her/them, hence her position on the board. Obviously this is only touching the surface of a much larger issue, but from my perspective Alberti seems as though she's always trying to find ways to gain 'compensation'.

Wilson had far more right to be angered and if she took action, I could understand. However - she accepted an apology and got on with it.

You have just displayed one of the worst aspects of the Australian psyche - knock the tall poppy.

Dr Alberti claims she did not purchase two tables in The Footy Show audience after the Newman skit.

She also took issue with Newman's comments describing the group of AFL women as "liars and hypocrites and querying the role of women in football-related matters.

Also she took aim at his comment that"They (women) serve very little purpose at board level. What do they do?"

This woman does magnificent work on behalf of the club and I hope she wins the case.

And if she does, I'll have a side bet she sends the money off to her favourite charity

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I'll agree with you on one point which I've extended to its logical conclusion. Newman is a prize clown. His ego stands in the way of any sort of sense or reason and his willingness to be ignorant on matters both on the football field and off shows him to be a prime example of the old saying, "better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it". To be honest though, the audience who panders to him are probably as culpable as he is.

Agreed, but we all know this. He's not going to change. He consistently plays up on and off the show. Nobody can deny his ego. I'm not going to lose sleep over any of it though. The fact that people keep rising to Newman only drives him further. That's what he aims for; controversy. He goes fishing and the same people keep biting.


As for women who bang on about women's right's, maybe if we didn't have to read in the newspaper about teenage girls being pack raped by teenage boys, then they wouldn't have to, but things change slowly and some people take a while to get the message.

I have no doubt most if not all people have got the message. Like anything, there will be people who couldn't careless about it though. Has nothing to do with the broader issue of sexism/equal rights IMO. Just because a couple of clowns play up, it doesn't mean an entire community does too. Each case should be treated on its merit, but with women's rights, it isn't. That's without even going into what they are able to do in society that men can't.


I'd also like to note that Ms Alberti's ability to fund raise has ended up in a lot of money in the coffers of the football team she loves.
I also imagine the issue in this case is less about dollars and more about taking a stand against a show which purports to be about football (I'd say it's more about ego's and sensationalism, it's certainly not about analysis of football) and often pays lip service to women and their role in the game without ever really treating them seriously and in the case of Newman being openly patronising.

She does some good work for our club, but that doesn't really change my perception of her. I respect what she's been able to do, but she's regularly flaming people about women's rights. Much of these groups want it both ways (have there cake and eat it).

As I said, each case should be judged on its own. Newman's an idiot, we all know that. Continually bringing up the same issue is tedious though - especially when it didn't even involve her in the first place.

As for Caro, well she did take the apology and got on with it, but without seeming like a conspiracy theorist, she's also a Channel 9 employee, hardly a good base from which to take a true stand.[/QUOTE]


Hear hear Underdog, couldn't agree more. I'm with Ms Alberti all the way, mind you I don't know what it will take to make Sam Newman take a long hard look at himself, he seems to be an irredeemable tool.

It's good to see someone say on behalf of all the women in footy, we're mad as hell and we won't take it any more. Caro is not in a position to do it as she depends on these clowns for her livelihood.

This is the point. Newman isn't going to change, why do people keep thinking they can? That's not to say he should be allowed to get away with whatever he wants but in this instance it had very little to do with Alberti. It was Caroline Wilson's issue and she's in a better position than anybody to make a stand. More people would listen to Caroline Wilson than Alberti, but she decided to accept the apology and move on. That's fine, why does Alberti have to then come in and take over?

I just find the whole on-going issue ridiculous. Women have plenty of advantages over men in several circumstances. Vice versa. That's the way life is.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

You have just displayed one of the worst aspects of the Australian psyche - knock the tall poppy.

Dr Alberti claims she did not purchase two tables in The Footy Show audience after the Newman skit.

She also took issue with Newman's comments describing the group of AFL women as "liars and hypocrites and querying the role of women in football-related matters.

Also she took aim at his comment that"They (women) serve very little purpose at board level. What do they do?"

This woman does magnificent work on behalf of the club and I hope she wins the case.

And if she does, I'll have a side bet she sends the money off to her favourite charity

Can you imagine if we all took another person to court for every time we felt our intelligence was insulted?

I don't really care what she does for our club in this case. It's a different matter.

It's petty.

[Murphy'sLore]

Women have plenty of advantages over men in several circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Do you mind if I ask exactly what those advantages are, TBB?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Do you mind if I ask exactly what those advantages are, TBB?

They can fondle boobs any time they want.

[Murphy'sLore]

I rest my case.

[LostDoggy]

Not a fan of Newman at the best of times, but I can't say I have much time for Alberti either. Seems to take everything as a personal attack and I can't stand women who constantly bang on about women's rights. The majority have respect for her/them, hence her position on the board. Obviously this is only touching the surface of a much larger issue, but from my perspective Alberti seems as though she's always trying to find ways to gain 'compensation'.

Wilson had far more right to be angered and if she took action, I could understand. However - she accepted an apology and got on with it.

lost me TBB,
are you sure you do not have another agenda?

[Stefcep]

Women have plenty of advantages over men in several circumstances.

Do you mind if I ask exactly what those advantages are, TBB?[/QUOTE]

you have gotta be joking, right?a

I work in a company that has over 6000 employees across Australia. 10 years ago management took a deliberate decision to hire 8 female employees for every two males. Better for customer service, they reckoned. Better to have part time workers they thought. Five years later all-female stores had the highest rates of staff conflict and absenteeism, and the highest rates of offers to upskill being rejected by staff. The company now has major staff skill level issues, a chronic lack of applicants suitable to take on management and leadership roles, and customer satisfaction is worse than ever

Do you know of anyone who's ever been accused of sexual harrassment? Plenty of high profile Court cases where the accused is named, the accuser anonymous. Its guilty until proven innocent. And even if not guilty, the accused is smeared forever. Think Theophanous here..but there are others.

Do you know anyone or have you been involved in Family Court matters? You try to fight that system and convince them you're as good a parent as a mother. Being relegated to a distant uncle to their own kids, losing their home and a 30%-50% pay cut to the take home pay doesn't sound like equality to me.

[Stefcep]

lost me TBB,
are you sure you do not have another agenda?

Are you?

[Bulldog4life]

Not a fan of Newman at the best of times, but I can't say I have much time for Alberti either. Seems to take everything as a personal attack and I can't stand women who constantly bang on about women's rights. The majority have respect for her/them, hence her position on the board. Obviously this is only touching the surface of a much larger issue, but from my perspective Alberti seems as though she's always trying to find ways to gain 'compensation'.Wilson had far more right to be angered and if she took action, I could understand. However - she accepted an apology and got on with it.

That is a sweeping statement. Could you please elaborate and give me some examples.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I work in a company that has over 6000 employees across Australia. 10 years ago management took a deliberate decision to hire 8 female employees for every two males. Better for customer service, they reckoned. Better to have part time workers they thought. Five years later all-female stores had the highest rates of staff conflict and absenteeism, and the highest rates of offers to upskill being rejected by staff. The company now has major staff skill level issues, a chronic lack of applicants suitable to take on management and leadership roles, and customer satisfaction is worse than ever

Do you know of anyone who's ever been accused of sexual harrassment? Plenty of high profile Court cases where the accused is named, the accuser anonymous. Its guilty until proven innocent. And even if not guilty, the accused is smeared forever. Think Theophanous here..but there are others.

Do you know anyone or have you been involved in Family Court matters? You try to fight that system and convince them you're as good a parent as a mother. Being relegated to a distant uncle to their own kids, losing their home and a 30%-50% pay cut to the take home pay doesn't sound like equality to me.

Good post and this is what I was alluding to.

Younger girls especially are given an arm chair ride. I have plenty of female friends who literally have jobs thrown at them. No such luck for the males. In the actual jobs themselves, they're generally given more leniency too. I've experienced it, heard it and seen it all a hundred times. Pretty fair to say that's why I can't stand listening to the whole "women aren't getting equal rights" line.

Take night clubs/bars for example. Majority of girls don't have to line-up nor pay the same price as men. They walk straight in and a lot of places have two different prices. (Some even free before a certain time).

The parenting custody is a huge one, too. Again I've seen first hand a few of these examples through close friends. It's ridiculous.

I don't hear any complaining about equal rights in any of those cases.

Note: I am not a "woman hater" of any kind. Just don't buy into this whole crap when there's plenty of examples for the other side of the coin, too.


That is a sweeping statement. Could you please elaborate and give me some examples.

Just through the newspapers/radio I've heard her speak a couple of times about it in the last two years.

[EasternWest]

They can fondle boobs any time they want.

Despite myself, I'm ashamed to admit, I laughed a bit at this.:eek:

[Stefcep]

Good post and this is what I was alluding to.

Younger girls especially are given an arm chair ride. I have plenty of female friends who literally have jobs thrown at them. No such luck for the males. In the actual jobs themselves, they're generally given more leniency too. I've experienced it, heard it and seen it all a hundred times. Pretty fair to say that's why I can't stand listening to the whole "women aren't getting equal rights" line.

Take night clubs/bars for example. Majority of girls don't have to line-up nor pay the same price as men. They walk straight in and a lot of places have two different prices. (Some even free before a certain time).

The parenting custody is a huge one, too. Again I've seen first hand a few of these examples through close friends. It's ridiculous.

I don't hear any complaining about equal rights in any of those cases.

Note: I am not a "woman hater" of any kind. Just don't buy into this whole crap when there's plenty of examples for the other side of the coin, too.



Just through the newspapers/radio I've heard her speak a couple of times about it in the last two years.

Another personal example is trying to take annual leave in school xmas holidays. Females always get preference, they just say "Kids are home I'm not going to at work then". Not so if you're a bloke. I got jack of this, spoke to my superior-female- she agreed and just said to the lovely ladies: "Tough titties. You've had Xmas off 5 years straight"

Its now a question of the pendulum having swung too far. I've always believed in people being give a go according to merit, whether thats in sport, or life in general. I couldn't give a stuff if you're male, female, black, white, jew, muslim or christian. But being chosen as the best person for the job just because you're female is not on.

Its a fact of life that women will do some jobs better than men, and men will do others better. Most of this due to natural biology. I'd wish the feminasties would just accept it and MOVE on.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Its a fact of life that women will do some jobs better than men, and men will do others better. Most of this due to natural biology. I'd wish the feminasties would just accept it and MOVE on.

Absolutely spot on.

Discussion finished on my end.

[Bulldog4life]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog4life
That is a sweeping statement. Could you please elaborate and give me some examples.

[QUOTE=The Bulldogs Bite;124687]
Just through the newspapers/radio I've heard her speak a couple of times about it in the last two years.


That is not like you BB to give such a simplistic reply. You usually are a lot more thorough in your explanations. I believe that if in your perspective Sue Alberti always looks for compensation you surely must be able to quote at least one other time when this happened.

[LostDoggy]

Absolutely spot on.

Discussion finished on my end.

Clearly acting the fool every week on GTV9 is one of those jobs that men do best.

[LostDoggy]

This is turning into a touchy subject. My first reaction was toughen up princess but with recent events there is definately a need to promote more respect for women from figureheads of the football community. Very hard to believe out of 30 odd fellas that none of them did something to help the situation.

[boydogs]

My first reaction was toughen up princess but with recent events there is definately a need to promote more respect for women from figureheads of the football community.


And if she does, I'll have a side bet she sends the money off to her favourite charity

Agree with both, but it seems to me the court system is being used to prove a political point rather than seek compensation for loss of earnings resulting from character assassination, that is where she has lost me

[LostDoggy]

Agree with both, but it seems to me the court system is being used to prove a political point rather than seek compensation for loss of earnings resulting from character assassination, that is where she has lost me

Hardly a political point more a moral and sexist one. A lesson that recent events show that a number of people in football need to learn.
Good on her.

[LostDoggy]

Good on Susan for taking it up to Sam Newman and the rest of those nobs!

Disappointed with some of the comments here. Stefcep - your company probably said that women were better at customer service, but the reality is men won't work in casual poorly paid areas such as customer service. Every year the stats still come out that women are not paid equally to men. I have seen it first hand with two identical jobs with two different titles paid at different rates of pay because one is a woman and one is man!

As for taking leave because the kids are sick - women complain all the time that it is left to them to have to take leave from their jobs, two parents should share the responsiblity.

[KT31]

Good on Susan for taking it up to Sam Newman and the rest of those nobs!

As for taking leave because the kids are sick - women complain all the time that it is left to them to have to take leave from their jobs, two parents should share the responsiblity.

At least you got part of it right.:D

[The Bulldogs Bite]

That is not like you BB to give such a simplistic reply. You usually are a lot more thorough in your explanations. I believe that if in your perspective Sue Alberti always looks for compensation you surely must be able to quote at least one other time when this happened.

I don't have any sort of link to an article or hard evidence of radio to show. I'm just going by memory as I've heard and read snippets over the last two years every now and again. There's a few things on google from a brief look though.

[LostDoggy]

At least you got part of it right.:D

Ha!:)

[Sockeye Salmon]

At least you got part of it right.:D

Your beautiful bride would never complain.


What are you doing on Woof anyway? Haven't you got work to do?


LOOKOUT! SHE'S COMING BACK!!!


*Sound of KT31 logging off and getting out the vacuum cleaner*

[Doc26]

And if she does, I'll have a side bet she sends the money off to her favourite charity

And the Western Bulldogs would be right up there as a favourite charity cause :D along with the Womens Football League which Sue also supports generously.

I can't really see what Sam Newman's regular sexist, racist and minority group taunting has to do with the now expanded topic of equal opportunity in the workplace or family court decisions etc. They are separate and more complex issues in their own right.

Personally I see Sue's action as one more for the minorities he regularly defames and exploits. I hope the court finds in her favour and I agree any compensation awarded will no doubt be received by a worthy cause.

[LostDoggy]

I cannot believe some of the rampant misogynism on this thread, and I'm a bloke!
There is no genuine debate here ....get real and lift your game fellow woofers!!!!!!!

[Topdog]

She will have a very hard time getting money from our courts for this. We aren't in the US.

[Stefcep]

Hardly a political point more a moral and sexist one. A lesson that recent events show that a number of people in football need to learn.
Good on her.

was she raped by a football team?

[Stefcep]

I cannot believe some of the rampant misogynism on this thread, and I'm a bloke!
There is no genuine debate here ....get real and lift your game fellow woofers!!!!!!!

i know what you mean: its mysogynism to have true equality these days..wake up and look around you: young males are less likely to perform well at school and complete year 12, male suicide rates are 10x higher, fathers are getting crucified in the Family Court, funding for male diseases like prostate cancer is a fraction of that for breast cancer yet equal numbers die from each one, there's "positive discrimination" ie its "positive" when its discrimination against men, in the work place.

Sam Newman is an idiot, but this women is there to make a political point. i hope she gets shafted and gets to pay costs as well.

[Raw Toast]

i know what you mean: its mysogynism to have true equality these days..wake up and look around you: young males are less likely to perform well at school and complete year 12, male suicide rates are 10x higher, fathers are getting crucified in the Family Court, funding for male diseases like prostate cancer is a fraction of that for breast cancer yet equal numbers die from each one, there's "positive discrimination" ie its "positive" when its discrimination against men, in the work place.

Sam Newman is an idiot, but this women is there to make a political point. i hope she gets shafted and gets to pay costs as well.

Very selective use of stats here - for instance young males do not perform as well at school yet they will still earn an average of 17% more than their female counterparts over the course of their life-time. And the idea that men are more discriminated in the work-force than women just doesn't stack up against any reading of the evidence.

The legal and health issues are complicated, but to see them as simply part of an overall picture of discrimination against men is to buy into a particular conspiracy theory.

Newman said women have no role in footy and defamed Alberti who has been an important servant of the club we all love. To imply that she should just take it sounds dangerously similar to the way footy refused to combat racism pre-1993, and the way many would like to see it refuse to confront sexism.

I don't want to get into a debate that descends into name-calling and worse, but it saddens me that a hard-working loyal servant of our club is so easily derided by some fellow supporters.

[LostDoggy]

She will have a very hard time getting money from our courts for this. We aren't in the US.

well you might be in for a shock Topdog!

[Max469]

Time to close this thread I think - it is getting out of hand and I don't want WOOF to become BIG FOOTY.

Max

[LostDoggy]

Very selective use of stats here - for instance young males do not perform as well at school yet they will still earn an average of 17% more than their female counterparts over the course of their life-time. And the idea that men are more discriminated in the work-force than women just doesn't stack up against any reading of the evidence.

The legal and health issues are complicated, but to see them as simply part of an overall picture of discrimination against men is to buy into a particular conspiracy theory.

Newman said women have no role in footy and defamed Alberti who has been an important servant of the club we all love. To imply that she should just take it sounds dangerously similar to the way footy refused to combat racism pre-1993, and the way many would like to see it refuse to confront sexism.

I don't want to get into a debate that descends into name-calling and worse, but it saddens me that a hard-working loyal servant of our club is so easily derided by some fellow supporters.

This deserves to be re posted.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Very selective use of stats here - for instance young males do not perform as well at school yet they will still earn an average of 17% more than their female counterparts over the course of their life-time. And the idea that men are more discriminated in the work-force than women just doesn't stack up against any reading of the evidence.

The legal and health issues are complicated, but to see them as simply part of an overall picture of discrimination against men is to buy into a particular conspiracy theory.

The point is that both genders are discriminated against in various aspects of life. There's no conspiracy theory, it's just the way it is. Most of us (including myself) are more than fine with it because generally it all balances out. I'm certainly not complaining at the "disadvantages" of being a male - myself along with a couple of others are merely pointing them out.

However, saying without hesitation that women are discriminated against and men aren't is naive.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Very selective use of stats here - for instance young males do not perform as well at school yet they will still earn an average of 17% more than their female counterparts over the course of their life-time.

Surely the figures are slewed by women leaving the workforce to have a family?

Take half a dozen years out of any man's career and he'll struggle to kick on as well.

[Raw Toast]

The point is that both genders are discriminated against in various aspects of life. There's no conspiracy theory, it's just the way it is. Most of us (including myself) are more than fine with it because generally it all balances out. I'm certainly not complaining at the "disadvantages" of being a male - myself along with a couple of others are merely pointing them out.

However, saying without hesitation that women are discriminated against and men aren't is naive.

I'm not saying men are not discriminated against, they clearly are in certain cases. But the point is that in the workforce (and an unfortunately large number of other areas) the discrimination does NOT balance out.


Surely the figures are slewed by women leaving the workforce to have a family?

Take half a dozen years out of any man's career and he'll struggle to kick on as well.

Indeed, but as far as I know these figures take that into account (in terms of total money earned at least). I'll go back over the studies in a while (fairly busy at the moment, ;)), but this article gives a good summary of my recollection of it all:
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,26004607-462,00.html

One key paragraph is:
"Women in full-time work earn 17 per cent less than men, and women graduates start on salaries $2000 below men with the same qualifications. And fewer than 2 per cent of ASX 200 have a female chief executive."

[Sockeye Salmon]

One key paragraph is:
"Women in full-time work earn 17 per cent less than men, and women graduates start on salaries $2000 below men with the same qualifications.

Perhaps women aren't as aggressive negotiating salary packages?



And fewer than 2 per cent of ASX 200 have a female chief executive."

To become a chief executive of a ASX200 company your career cannot afford going on hold while you have a family. That would go a long way to accounting for that figure.

Perhaps women aren't as aggressive politically to get to the top? To make it to the top it's just as important to be able to take out your competitors from within as it is to be talanted.

[LostDoggy]

Perhaps women aren't as aggressive negotiating salary packages?



To become a chief executive of a ASX200 company your career cannot afford going on hold while you have a family. That would go a long way to accounting for that figure.

Perhaps women aren't as aggressive politically to get to the top? To make it to the top it's just as important to be able to take out your competitors from within as it is to be talanted.

The old biology is destiny argument, gee I haven't heard that in awhile.

[LostDoggy]

[QUOTE=Sockeye Salmon;124869]Perhaps women aren't as aggressive negotiating salary packages?



To become a chief executive of a ASX200 company your career cannot afford going on hold while you have a family. That would go a long way to accounting for that figure.

So none of these captains of industry have children:confused:

Perhaps women aren't as aggressive politically to get to the top? To make it to the top it's just as important to be able to take out your competitors from within as it is to be talanted.[/QUOTE

[Sockeye Salmon]

So none of these captains of industry have children:confused:



I'm fairly sure none of them gave birth.

The fact is it's predominately women who take leave to stay home (or at least reduce hours) to look after kids.

[Topdog]

well you might be in for a shock Topdog!

Trust me I won't be. How is she going to prove that she has lost anything by this "defamation"?

[Murphy'sLore]

Topdog, she doesn't have to prove any actual damage. The law only requires that the statement could have led to harm eg to her reputation.

If she wants to refute a claim that she's a liar, a hypocrite and useless at board level, that sounds fair enough to me. And if it makes Newman think twice before shooting his mouth off, it's worth it.

[LostDoggy]

If she wants to refute a claim that she's a liar, a hypocrite and useless at board level, that sounds fair enough to me. And if it makes Newman think twice before shooting his mouth off, it's worth it.

Agreed. She is a prominant business woman, and The Footy Show has a large (and seemingly impressionable) audience. The reasons he used to justify calling Alberti a liar, hypocrite weren't true and surely being called useless at board level on national television, especially considered the way his critique was delivered, could cause damage to her professional reputation.

[hujsh]

Trust me I won't be. How is she going to prove that she has lost anything by this "defamation"?

Only for slander do you have to prove harm. In this case it would be lible because it was in permanent form (media)

[Topdog]

Topdog, she doesn't have to prove any actual damage. The law only requires that the statement could have led to harm eg to her reputation.


You could be right. The bolded bit and the next paragraph seem slightly contradictory though.


The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

That the words were capable of a defamatory meaning as understood by ordinary members of society. Defamatory meaning could be anything which harms the person, in their reputation, their business or in the way other people treat them. The law does not say that the plaintiff must show actual proof of being harmed; it is enough that the false statement could have led to harm.

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

I don't remember the incident all that well but did Newman actually name her or the group of women. I'm not sure if I am an ordinary member of society but I'd find it very hard to believe that she has been harmed in any way.

[boydogs]

I don't remember the incident all that well but did Newman actually name her or the group of women.

The article below covers what happened:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/footy-show-aired-opinion-20080815-3wdx.html


I'm not sure if I am an ordinary member of society but I'd find it very hard to believe that she has been harmed in any way.

It also has to be false. If I was to say she is silly to waste the court's time, even if this lead the Bulldogs to fire her (harm), from your excerpt below the statement would have to be proven false which is only possible where a representation of fact not opinion is made

It seems the Garry Lyon statement re. purchasing tickets is most under question, as the Sam comments whilst arguably worse are more of an opinion. There is still the question of harm however.

This is where it starts to look like a vendetta from the Caroline Wilson stunt and Sam's response to her letter moreso than a genuine claim, as it's not even the sexist behaviour or comments she is contesting but being called and made to look like a hypocrite by Garry saying she purchased tickets to the show and then rang to make sure they were at the front, as if Susan herself was going to attend

The campaigning in the article below seems to me to be a more appropriate way of standing up against the sexism on display

http://www.theage.com.au/national/women-claim-victory-as-sams-boys-told-its-more-than-a-game-20080529-2jjp.html

[Topdog]

Cheers for that gogriff.

In all honesty she is doing herself more harm than good by pursuing this.

[aker39]

Channel 9 have paid Susan Alberti $220,000

[bornadog]

Channel 9 have paid Susan Alberti $220,000

nice little earner:p

[aker39]

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/legal-action-against-sam-newman-settled-20091116-ih38.html

Legal action against Sam Newman settled.
AAP

Legal action by a woman who lodged defamation proceedings against controversial television personality Sam Newman and the Nine Network has been settled.

Lawyers for the parties told the Victorian Supreme Court on Monday that they had agreed on a settlement and the defendants would pay Susan Alberti, an AFL Western Bulldogs board member, $220,000 plus the cost of the legal proceedings......

[The Coon Dog]

Channel 9 wouldn't have settled if they thought they would win.

[The Pie Man]

I see the comments on this story on the Hun website are predominantly negative re: this one - though I spose it's more a reflection on its conservative readership than anything else.

[LostDoggy]

Excellent news - even better if she uses the money to fund an additional Rookie or two

[Scraggers]

I dunno ... I'm torn.

As a Western Bulldogs supporter, I support Alberti's role in the club however, as an avid watcher of the Footy Show ... I don't think they did anything wrong ... to me, this is political correctness gone mad.

I saw both incidents that are talked about in this forum, neither of which I considered to be sexist or defamatory. Maybe that's just me though ...

The stapling of Wilson's photo to the head of a mannequin is NOT objectifying women as sex objects ...

And if Lyon's comments about the purchase of tables for the show was factually incorrect, then that is different story ...

I dunno ... I'm torn.

[LostDoggy]

I was amazed at the comments this thread received and as a female did not comment as I agreed with what Susan was doing and as a minority felt that my comments would not be received well - I think that Sam and the Footy show think they can do what they like. Susan is a business women who had a reputation to up hold.

She has won her case and settled outside of court - Herald Sun website claims she got $220,000 plus court costs.

This is a good result for women and also men as people's reputations are important !!!!

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

That is a sweeping statement. Could you please elaborate and give me some examples.


Clearly acting the fool every week on GTV9 is one of those jobs that men do best.


Can you imagine if we all took another person to court for every time we felt our intelligence was insulted?

I don't really care what she does for our club in this case. It's a different matter.

It's petty.

Sue Alberti has been a wonderful ambassador for charitable causes and the Western Bulldogs Football Club. This year alone she doubled the sponsorship of the Victorian Women's Football League from $50.000 to $100,000. In 2002, Sue Alberti at the Bulldogs Team of the Century presentation bid $44,000 for Tony Liberatore's jumper. Very few women would have the tenacity and strength of character to take on the might of Channel 9 and the Footy Show.
Maybe now at long last we might see some professionalism and respect come back into this show which is long overdue.

[Scraggers]

I was amazed at the comments this thread received and as a female did not comment as I agreed with what Susan was doing and as a minority felt that my comments would not be received well - I think that Sam and the Footy show think they can do what they like. Susan is a business women who had a reputation to up hold.

She has won her case and settled outside of court - Herald Sun website claims she got $220,000 plus court costs.

This is a good result for women and also men as people's reputations are important !!!!

I won't speak for everyone (mainly because I don't have their permission to do so) but you should never feel that your comments are not welcome here ... I disagree with your point of view, but I welcome your input to this and other discussions

[aker39]

I saw both incidents that are talked about in this forum, neither of which I considered to be sexist or defamatory. Maybe that's just me though ...



Maybe it is just you.

[Scraggers]

Maybe it is just you.

You're 100% correct A39 ... it may be just me ...

But to me the multitudes of nude or semi nude calendars (just as an example) that grace our magazine racks in the supermarkets are more objectifying than what was shown on the Footy Show (Again ... my opinion)

[aker39]

You're 100% correct A39 ... it may be just me ...

But to me the multitudes of nude or semi nude calendars (just as an example) that grace our magazine racks in the supermarkets are more objectifying than what was shown on the Footy Show (Again ... my opinion)

How many of those magazines have a photo of Caroline Wilson photoshoped in to them.

[The Coon Dog]

From the OP:




Dr Alberti was among a group of senior female AFL figures who wrote a letter of complaint to Nine bosses condemning the stunt.

The group called for The Footy Show cast to be counselled on their attitude towards women.

Signatories included AFL club board members, Sally Capp (Collingwood), Beverly Knight (Essendon), Lynn Ralph (Sydney), Sue Nattrass (Melbourne) and Janine Allis (Hawthorn).

But co-host Lyon publicly questioned the letter's credibility, alleging Ms Capp had said she did not want her name included. He also said that Dr Alberti had bought two tables in The Footy Show audience after the Newman skit.

Newman also weighed in, describing the group of AFL women as "liars and hypocrites". The former Geelong star went on to query the role of women in football-related matters.

"They serve very little purpose at board level. What do they do?" Newman said.

In a writ filed with the Supreme Court, Dr Alberti, a prominent businesswoman, alleges Channel 9 had defamed her.


I think the bold bits are the crux of Susan Alberti's concerns with Channel 9, perhaps much more than the Caro skit.

[aker39]

From the OP:



I think the bold bits are the crux of Susan Alberti's concerns with Channel 9, perhaps much more than the Caro skit.


Yes, but it was the Caro skit that made her feel that she needed to write to the footy show in the 1st place.

It was the footy shows response to that letter that led to her believing she'd been defamed.

[Topdog]

Channel 9 wouldn't have settled if they thought they would win.

Thats a rather sweeping statement. $220k is a fair whack though but really if you think about costs of lawyers and the courts plus negative publicity they may have figured that is a good break even point for them.

I'm disappointed in Sue with this though. For those saying she has won and is standing up for the "minority" I pose this question.

If it was about standing up for the rights of women, why do you settle out of court meaning the smallest amount of publicity possible? Basically this had 2 days news coverage which means very little publicity and very little standing up for the little people.

[aker39]

Thats a rather sweeping statement. $220k is a fair whack though but really if you think about costs of lawyers and the courts plus negative publicity they may have figured that is a good break even point for them.

I'm disappointed in Sue with this though. For those saying she has won and is standing up for the "minority" I pose this question.

If it was about standing up for the rights of women, why do you settle out of court meaning the smallest amount of publicity possible? Basically this had 2 days news coverage which means very little publicity and very little standing up for the little people.

It's got nothing to do with standing up for rights of women.

They called her a liar and a hypocrite and that she was not qualified to be on a football club board, all of which were wrong.

All she wanted was an apology. Today she got her apology and $220,000 for her troubles.

[bornadog]

It's got nothing to do with standing up for rights of women.

They called her a liar and a hypocrite and that she was not qualified to be on a football club board, all of which were wrong.

All she wanted was an apology. Today she got her apology and $220,000 for her troubles.

Yes heard her say that on SEN this afternoon and well done for pursing the whole thing.

Channel Nine, Sam Newman and Co are all dickheads personified. A simple apology would have saved a lot of money. Susan doesn't need the money, she has squillions, so it wasn't a money thing.

I have no time for that show or the people that run it.

[Bulldog4life]

Originally Posted by Bulldog4life
That is a sweeping statement. Could you please elaborate and give me some examples.



Sue Alberti has been a wonderful ambassador for charitable causes and the Western Bulldogs Football Club. This year alone she doubled the sponsorship of the Victorian Women's Football League from $50.000 to $100,000. In 2002, Sue Alberti at the Bulldogs Team of the Century presentation bid $44,000 for Tony Liberatore's jumper. Very few women would have the tenacity and strength of character to take on the might of Channel 9 and the Footy Show.
Maybe now at long last we might see some professionalism and respect come back into this show which is long overdue.

I don't know why you are quoting my post? I was referring to a different statement made by a poster in this thread altogether. Nothing to do with what Sue has positively done. I am fully aware what Sue Alberti has done for a number of charities and also for our great Club. Maybe you didn't read the whole thread?

[Scraggers]

Yes heard her say that on SEN this afternoon and well done for pursing the whole thing.

Channel Nine, Sam Newman and Co are all dickheads personified. A simple apology would have saved a lot of money. Susan doesn't need the money, she has squillions, so it wasn't a money thing.

I have no time for that show or the people that run it.

So it's not okay for Newman to say that women are useless on a footy board, and that Alberti et al. were liars and a hypocrites, but your broad sweeping statement is okay ... mmm

[azabob]

You're 100% correct A39 ... it may be just me ...

But to me the multitudes of nude or semi nude calendars (just as an example) that grace our magazine racks in the supermarkets are more objectifying than what was shown on the Footy Show (Again ... my opinion)

I think the major difference is most of the women who "grace our magazine racks" choose to and the get paid for doing so.

[Scraggers]

I think the major difference is most of the women who "grace our magazine racks" choose to and the get paid for doing so.

I agree that these women get paid to do so, but the major difference is not their pay ... stapling a photo to a mannequin is not objectifying women, making calendars etc of nude/semi-nude women is

[mighty_west]

Susan had every right to take Ch9, Newman & co all the way, and justice is now done, but it wasn't over the initial incidents, that was a stunt that went wrong, but what exculated, like alot of issues, they can just build up, and this did to a point of what Lyon said about Susan on the footy show, THATS where they made the biggest blunder, the mannequin stunt on it's own i believe wouldn't have got it this far, but those comments made were derogative towards a person in her powers.

[Sedat]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/defamation-nine-says-sorry-newman-doesnt-20091116-ii9y.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sam-newmans-500000-moment-of-madness/story-e6frf7jo-1225798346553

Newman's comments in the today's follow-up articles are a sure sign that both he and Lyon, behind closed doors, would have had their collective arses kicked long and hard by Jeff Browne and Channel 9 senior management over wasting their employer's time, money and resources over the last 6 months. Newman's false bravado cannot hide the fact that Susan has received:

a) her apology
b) a full public retraction of the assertions made by Lyon and Newman
c) monetary compensation for being proven to have been defamed

Bullies do not take kindly to their victims fighting back. Well done Susan - just a shame that Caroline Wilson is not made of sterner stuff and appears to be far more easily bought.

[Remi Moses]

It's got nothing to do with standing up for rights of women.

They called her a liar and a hypocrite and that she was not qualified to be on a football club board, all of which were wrong.

All she wanted was an apology. Today she got her apology and $220,000 for her troubles.

Bingo ! We have a winner. it really was a childish idiotic comment from Newman,but then again he does have a reputation to uphold:eek:

[bornadog]

So it's not okay for Newman to say that women are useless on a footy board, and that Alberti et al. were liars and a hypocrites, but your broad sweeping statement is okay ... mmm

Exactly, and not sure why you are sticking up for some one like Sam Newman who was clearly in the wrong.

Can't stand the bloke, he can't put two words together that are coherant. The guy is a dinosaur some one from the past when women were not treated as equals (still cases of this) and were the brunt of male jokes.

[Topdog]

Thats a rather sweeping statement. $220k is a fair whack though but really if you think about costs of lawyers and the courts plus negative publicity they may have figured that is a good break even point for them.

I'm disappointed in Sue with this though. For those saying she has won and is standing up for the "minority" I pose this question.

If it was about standing up for the rights of women, why do you settle out of court meaning the smallest amount of publicity possible? Basically this had 2 days news coverage which means very little publicity and very little standing up for the little people.

After the articles today I am satisfied that she got what she was after. I retract the above statement....

[boydogs]

$220k settlement, and $500k in legal fees before the case started. Something is wrong with this picture. The lawyers seem to be the ones profiting here, it is unfortunate this was the means selected to make a point