“This feels like an attempt by the journalist to be seen to champion an “innocent man” in a high profile case (great way to get listeners). It is not at the level of journalism I’ve come to expect and appreciate from The Age. I’ll admit to being uncomfortable about the subject of this podcast from the beginning - who wouldn’t be about revisiting such tragic events? - but I listened because, as a product of The Age, I expected new insights to justify opening this door. There were none. Some of the “investigative findings” were merely distractions - the car experiment was pointless; the focus on witness testimony and writings which cannot be further tested because the people are either dead or incapable of communicating; the “new witness” who ended up contradicting herself; the journalist’s commentary on RF’s “crocodile tears” being sincere … RF lives with the repercussions of his choices that day - I’m not interested in joining the pile on. But I would hope The Age ensures there is actual newsworthiness to any future podcasts published under their banner.
Edit: started listening to bonus episode in the hope you would address actual concerns raised. Couldn’t get past 5 mins. Your bias is painfully obvious when talking about the car.”
SallyJane22 via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
09/04/24