Questions for News Ltd (& Fairfax) over photos

Good to see that News Ltd has put more information into the public arena today, but there are still plenty of questions for them to answer. Clearly they were interested in an extended story with her all year, but would not do it without her parents' permission (and I believe there was more to it than that). They also saw 'some' pictures including the Riewoldt/Dawson one last month. So,

• Someone at the Herald Sun knows whether there are more pictures or not. Yet they won't say. Why?
• 'Jane' (I'll follow the News Ltd nicety) is still a few months off turning 18. This has just tied the media in knots. She is out there freely using her real name and being heard, and has dropped all pretence to privacy (after having it continually stripped from her), but still no-one will call her by name until she passes the magical birthday. Anyone can find it out within seconds. AFP (Agence France) and overseas outlets are already free to use her name. What are the legal reasons for still being so coy about it? How about an agreed media-wide alias then?
• She has allegedly received serious threats from unstable footy followers. Some of them were investigated by police. Why aren't we being told those details?
• What is Ricky Nixon's role, for better or worse? News Ltd has some of that today, but it looks like some of it is subject to suppression. Gossip and innuendo abound.
• Lastly, check out the Gold Coast Bulletin's video interview with her. They use her real name on the thumbnail image. You idiots! Even the media trying to toe their fancy line are caught out by human error plus technology.

Meanwhile Dan Silkstone has a good article in today's Age except that he also overplays the "balance" or "he said, she said" stuff. When one party has been caught out repeatedly lying, and in particular about crucial aspects of the story, that should be stated upfront. Instead The Age just says "The club's assertion that the photographs were taken on the team trip appear to be backed by internet images ..." (my emphasis)

This whole story is a terrific counterpoint to WikiLeaks: powerful interests cannot stop information from getting out in the internet age. Journalists should be aiming to work out which of the information is (a) true, (b) interesting, (c) worth chasing independently. But footy followers have more time and resources to put all the threads together sometimes - who do we trust to get everything in order? Not everyone wants to spend hours digging.

Some really good points here. Wikileaks has the potential to transform media channels and journalism too. The question is: will it?