Actually been having a think about what I said and I’m changing my opinion of John Silvesters piece. Now that I’ve thought about it some more, I just reckon it’s not so much that he doesn’t know the area, it’s more that I think it’s actually just a really sloppy bit of journalism.
There’s been more than enough info put out about the exact location of camps - where Russell, Carol and the proposed killer were camped, where the witnesses were camped that heard the 4by turning around, and there’s that many maps out there with that info on, plus the gate location etc - so to get it wrong is pretty lazy. Really brings the written part of the article into question too.
Thanks, Brumby Jack
The Silvester piece is another thing we've been discussing. We contrasted it with this piece from the ABC: "
Without a trace".
1. they both use information in the public domain that is accepted as true and often verified by police.
2. The ABC piece then, with information not in the public domain, uses various phrases attributing that information to sources [bolding is mine]: "Friends
say since Russell..."; "It’s a prospect
Inspector Stamper sees..."; "Then on March 11, Russell
told friends"; "
Russell’s friend of almost 30 years, Robbie Ashlin,
says..."
3. the ABC piece avoids unattributed speculation
4. the Silvester piece uses unconfirmed speculation and unattributed assertion: "Lynn was an expert at stalking game in the bush..". Really? Source? Mr Lynn is certainly a keen camper and outdoorsman and also engages in hunting. But, to attribute "expert at stalking..." to him, without a source, is not justified. Similarly, "But as he busied himself around his bush camp at dinner time on Monday, November 22..." Again, police have not made public what he was doing when apprehended. In any case, Mr Lynn was
arrested at about 17:30. Whether that is "dinner time" is a matter of opinion; "A practical man, Lynn knew police would have to look at him...". Firstly, one does not need ot be a practical person to "know" this; but, in any case, how does Silvester know what was going on inside Mr Lynn's head? The entire paragraph is, what my teacher used to call, "mixamatensis". The first sentence is future tense: "would have to"; the others, as past tense, what has happened. The past cannot be used to justify the future. "Driven to Sale, showered and fed, he was taken to the interview room to be asked questions under a caution that anything he said could be used in evidence." This is an assertion of fact that does not have a source. Likewise these sentences contain assertions, but no attribution: "Lynn didn’t know the detectives sitting opposite him, but they knew him. In such long-term investigations detectives usually build a psychological profile of the suspect" and "One was a “bushie” with a love of four-wheel-driving and camping in remote areas, just like Lynn". Mr Silvester could have said, "I have been told that..." Or "A member of the investigatory team, who was not authorised to speak, said that...."
Another warning bell is this, "If he had given a no-comment interview, he would probably have been released or charged earlier". Mr Silvester does not know what type of interview Mr Lynn gave.
When a journalist refers to the sources of their information, they are asking us to trust that they have faithfully represented the information they have been given and also the assertions are checkable - and they are prepared stand by hat they have written and subject their work to scrutiny. That is not the case when there is an absence of attribution. Given that the article purports to present fact, the absence of attribution reduces the degree to which we can rely upon the assertions made.
