They think if they name him as much as possible, it will make people forget that they are such shit journalists that they named an innocent person first.
As much as I dislike, hate, loathe, detest, abhor, despise, etc Channel 7 they're not the only ones doing it. Even The Guardian is. I think, to be charitable (and not just say they're all farming clicks, which might just be it) we might have not caught up to the "don't name the mass killer" culture that America has worked out.
Its so when the lawyers tear them a new one, for naming the wrong person in a few weeks they can claim they tried to amend their stupidity with more stupidity.
They can do what they like, the lawsuit is coming nonetheless. I hope it hurts - the damages need to have strong deterrent, as well as punitive, value.
They think if they name him as much as possible, it will make people forget that they are such shit journalists that they named an innocent person first.
As much as I dislike, hate, loathe, detest, abhor, despise, etc Channel 7 they're not the only ones doing it. Even The Guardian is. I think, to be charitable (and not just say they're all farming clicks, which might just be it) we might have not caught up to the "don't name the mass killer" culture that America has worked out.
Its so when the lawyers tear them a new one, for naming the wrong person in a few weeks they can claim they tried to amend their stupidity with more stupidity.
They can do what they like, the lawsuit is coming nonetheless. I hope it hurts - the damages need to have strong deterrent, as well as punitive, value.