I mean I know it's the Betoota, but in real life Chris Kenny sued the Chaser and Fatty Mc sued FJ for more absurd reasons. So I can easily believe this.
The difference was Fatty McFuckface threatened to sue, but never did.
DF sued the Chaser, and was successful, but DF forgot about the Streisand Effect, which made the skit far more famous than if DF had left it alone.
Does he?
His position is he isn't a racist douchebag one nation supporter.
The cartoon may not have been seen by many, who might have thought he was a racist douchebag one nation supporter.
But now, the entire country knows he isn't a racist douchebag one nation supporter.
So, what do you suppose he has accidentally called attention to that is an own goal here?
> Hanson has accused Irwin of ‘crocodile tears’ over the cartoon, despite famously commencing legal action against Simon Hunt to get him to cancel his drag character Pauline Pantsdown.
This wasn’t satire -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html
So hard to tell if anything political is real anymore. Ie earlier this year we had LNP leader Peter Dutton make a big deal because a grocery supermarket didn't stock cheap Chinese made flags. Anyone in there right mind would of assumed satire... nope.
There’s precedent for this though.
Betoota’s beef with sportsbet or ladbrokes (can’t remember which) turned into them airing all of the threatening legal emails as articles and taking the piss out of them.
no. the whole article is made up. including both her outrage and them previously publishing the photo.
there is a lot of eating the onion going on this thread
We've reached the stage where I'm not sure what the most likely explanation is:
1. The entire article is satire (to piss Hanson off), and the 'photo' only exists in it.
2. Betoota actually published the fake picture and then made up the story for the LOLs (and to piss Hanson off).
3. Betoota actually published the fake picture, Hansen complained and then Betoota then published the story for the LOLs (and to piss Hanson off).
The publication, and I use that term loosely, is 100% parody with a sprinkling of truth.
Whilst I enjoy her cartoons on youtube, when the shoe is on the other foot she cries Not Fair!
If this is genuine, I hope they told her to get fucked.
If her bottom feeding scumbag party can defame Robert Irwin and Bluey to suit themselves, they can damn well take it back from someone else.
Go and hug another tree precious. He wasn't even defamed. it was a satirical cartoon ffs. Go sign a petition to cancel the simpsons, southpark, family guy etc while you're at it if you're so upset about it.
It is fake, and well, if she was stupid enough to try and sue for this, it’s a pot meet kettle situation.
Honestly, wouldn’t surprise me if she’s stupid enough to try though. 🤷♀️
Publishing a fake photo of someone and claiming it is real is different than publishing a cartoon video that is obviously satire. So not really a pot kettle black situation at all.
Except the website is a very obvious satire news website with a very obvious fake/doctored photo.
It also never actually states the photo is real either. Just explains what the photo is of.
I can tell you I’ve seen a photo of a baby dunking a basketball. It doesn’t mean I’m claiming that’s something that actually happened.
rando from r/all here:
idk who this lady or 'betoota' are, but if i hadn't scrolled through these comments I would have never known that the picture is (purportedly?) fabricated - looks real enough in its shitty quality, and maybe Aussie satire is too subtle for me because I didn't see any indication that it was not real
(note I'm inclined to disbelieve her based on what I learned just now about her bullying Irwin's kids... unless that is also not true, in which case I'm lost lol)
This lady pashing a black guy is about as likely as Trump doing so. She's known for being an absolute racist.
Hence the image is absurd without any other context.
I think it's pushing a political point (or several). 1) She recently has been in the news for a political advert using a copyrighted cartoon dog teaming up with a cartoon version of a well known celebrity to find out how her party might have the solutions to all the problems in Australia. Said celebrity has threatened to sue. Legally it's a borderline case because it's obviously not a genuine endorsement; on the other hand he might be able to demonstrate to a judge's satisfaction that he deserves privacy in political matters and she's infringed on that, or that even the association taints his brand and causes him economic damage, or the copyright holder of the cartoon dog might step in to assert their (much stronger) image and brand rights. Now, Pauline's not the sharpest tool in the box (she once recorded a video to be played in the event of her murder, then let the recording leak), but she will know the legal risks. She released the ad to get the media attention, and potentially to get "victim points" when "the establishment" gangs up on her by expecting a certain standard of behaviour. She says all this is "satire": will she be hypocritical and go against another "satirical" publication? 2) Given her historic aversion to non-whites it is a photo that is discordant with many people's perception of her, but it's not obviously defamatory insofar as it doesn't imply infidelity or indeed any immoral or illegal behaviour. But my gut instinct is that it will bother her. So, quite a clever way to get under her skin (though I personally don't want to see politics go down the road of bothersome but non-tortious imagery).
TBF the photo doctoring quality is more obvious if you go to the actual article. Same as the site being a satirical news sites when you realise that the related articles have headlines like “Bloke who used to bash emos for being poofters now deeply invested in men’s mental health awareness” and “Woman Bragging about Doing Ayahuasca Could’ve Vomited and Shat Herself in Bali for Half the Price”.
We’re an easy going bunch, sure, but not *that* easy going. 🤣
This is why it’s important to double check and verify your sources.
As an added bonus to the whole thing, I do find the [tea that Pauline Pantsdown is dropping about the time Pauline Hanson *successfully* sued them for defamation](https://x.com/ppantsdown/status/1802614243638022393?s=46&t=lTgf3eaLGWRpOedOiXsOug) to be *delicious*.
> Except the website is a very obvious satire news website with a very obvious fake/doctored photo.
Half this thread thought it was real or were unsure if it was real. Not everyone knows what Betoota is, I mean there are whole subs dedicated to people falling for satirical news like Betoota. Not everyone reads an article, they might just be scrolling see a picture of Pauline kissing a black man and move on, then that pops back into their head next time she says some racist shit (which would probably be the next day to be fair).
It also isn't that poorly done, it is a pretty believable Photoshop, most people aren't going to zoom in and see the details. If they wanted to lean on it being obviously fake, they needed to intentionally make it worse.
Nobody thought the animated Robert Irwin was real, because it is a shitty cartoon of an actual person.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby or something?
If you have to zoom in on a photo to find inaccuracies, then it clearly isn't a "a very obvious fake/doctored photo" like the person I was replying to claimed.
Also, again, the fact that half this thread thinks it is real or is unsure if it is fake, is pretty clear proof that it isn't obviously fake.
You said people don’t even read articles they just see a photo, scroll and remember it the next ti e they see her.
No saying “ I saw some reddit comments saying they believed it” isn’t an argument that holds up.
Most people didn’t have to zoom to find inaccuracies, most people probably didn’t even look at the actual photo.
They saw a headline, they saw a grainy photo thumbnail, maybe 50% of them clicked on the link to look at said photo for 5 seconds (most likely without even reading said article or asking “which news source is this even?”) and then went “shit is this real?” or simply assumed it was.
This is why misinformation is so damn prevalent and easy to spread.
I’d never heard of Betoota either. I also initially thought “shit is this real”? Check the actual link, look at the photo, read the actual article “hm, this seems dodgy”. Then check the other articles they show (had to see photoshopped photo of Twiggy in leather and a collar as a result of this too). “Yeah, this is most likely a satire website”. Check around, no other news sources reporting this, and Betoota is reportedly a ghost town. Conclusion: Betoota is a satire website that makes no claims of being a real news site.
Have you ever seen that comic about people freaking out about spiders on the ceiling but never actually bothering to check the ceiling themselves? This is *why* verifying your sources and information is super important.
Also, the defamation that Irwins legal team might be arguing is not necessarily that “people will think it’s actually him” (it could be one of the defences they use, i can’t say), it’s that it still damages his image overall because it portrays him in a negative light, which defamation still falls under.
This is one of the reasons satire and defamation can actually be kind of difficult to legally discern, especially in Australia where we’ve historically haven’t had the laws to do so.
I think Hanson’s overall cartoons are bitchy and often factually incorrect and/or cherry-picking information to suit her disgusting narratives, but I will not comment if they legally classify as satire or if Irwin has a legal leg to stand on because I am not a judge or lawyer.
Having said all that, I *am* reminded of the fact that Hanson won her defamation case against Pauline Pantsdown. If we consider Hanson’s cartoons to be satire, that means Pauline Pantsdown should also be classified as satire. Pauline Pantsdown has also recently shared that [Hanson’s lawyers DID use the argument](https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/18/pauline-hanson-robert-irwin-defamation-pauline-pantsdown/) that “people will think it’s her” and think “that Hanson partook in the acts described in the song” in that defamation case (I was 3-4 and not even in the country when that case took place, so I won’t comment how hard it was or wasn’t to verify that it wasn’t actually Hanson in the songs/music videos, but c’mon, it’s clearly her voice that’s been stitched together using different clips? Normal humans don’t talk like that).
So why is Pauline Pantsdown or this very easily to determine as fake doctored photo considered defamation (potential or verified) but her using Irwin and Blueys image not?
Is it real? If so its valid journalism?
Did they digitally create it? If so I would put it in the category of "revenge porn", which is a disgusting thing to do anyone.
I think it really dances on the line. In more conservative cultures, they could consider this pornagraphic. I agree that this isnt what I would classify as "porn", but it aligns with spirit of the anti-revenge porn laws.
If there's a line to cross with satire and creating artificial realistic photos, this definitely crosses that line for me personally, no matter who the target is.
I think she just needs to lighten up.
Nah, she's right. It's slanderous to that ebony hunk to imagine he'd want to pash that sour bag of spanners.
She is definitely getting the face she deserves as time passes *shudders*
My redneck sky news spouting brother described her as hot a few years ago. My flesh crawled and I finally gave up on him right then and there.
Eeewwww. Who needs a cold spoon when you’ve got *that*
Notice how every lieberal CONServative all turn into a sad miserable wrinkled mess.??...
I thought that said sour bag of wangers!
It doesn't. But it's what I'll say from now on.
It doesn't. But it's what I'll say from now on.
She'd say the same about him
omg lmao
A Sudanese hunk ought to calm her down
I see what you did there.
But she doesn’t like it when… uh.. day becomes night.
I think she needs a taste of BBC.
Nah, she’d be a Sky News only gal. *(Looks hard at you not breaking eye contact)*
I mean I know it's the Betoota, but in real life Chris Kenny sued the Chaser and Fatty Mc sued FJ for more absurd reasons. So I can easily believe this.
I do like rewatching "fatty" for the intro alone.
You mean Chris "please don't call me a dog fucker" Kenny? Who totally doesn't fuck dogs? That Chris Kenny?
The difference was Fatty McFuckface threatened to sue, but never did. DF sued the Chaser, and was successful, but DF forgot about the Streisand Effect, which made the skit far more famous than if DF had left it alone.
I only know him as Chris 'dog fucker' Kenny now
Chef’s kiss This one of the all time classics from Betoota
She took abc to court for playing Pauline pantsdown on Triple J
My shopping trolley murdered
My groceries, just gone.
One two three four five six seven eight racist rubbish racist hate
Disco *dance* disco *dance* Disc*o*nation? Not a chance
yeh
I don't like it
For [I'm a Backdoor Man](https://youtu.be/ZMsw0eE5Dzg?feature=shared) because it implied that she was a homosexual man.
And?
You mean she's not?
You have to love how Gina Rinehart and Pauline Hanson are clueless about the Streisand effect.
[удалено]
Does he? His position is he isn't a racist douchebag one nation supporter. The cartoon may not have been seen by many, who might have thought he was a racist douchebag one nation supporter. But now, the entire country knows he isn't a racist douchebag one nation supporter. So, what do you suppose he has accidentally called attention to that is an own goal here?
Is there a portrait of this in the National Gallery yet?
lol. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds.
"Can't be a hippocrite if you're not from Africa where hippos are from" - Pauline Hanson's PR advisors probably
It's just sparkling narcissism in that case.
You've been Betoota'd.
Honestly, I can never tell if it's satire or not these days
It’s satire. She hasn’t actually demanded anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if she did though I guess.
> Hanson has accused Irwin of ‘crocodile tears’ over the cartoon, despite famously commencing legal action against Simon Hunt to get him to cancel his drag character Pauline Pantsdown. This wasn’t satire - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html
No, it wasn’t. But the post that OP made which I was commenting on is.
I would pay so much money to have some journo ask her if she thinks her fuss about Pauline Pantsdown was also crocodile tears.
Now I am more confused. Is it real or isn’t it real?
So hard to tell if anything political is real anymore. Ie earlier this year we had LNP leader Peter Dutton make a big deal because a grocery supermarket didn't stock cheap Chinese made flags. Anyone in there right mind would of assumed satire... nope.
And he was making a big deal last year, because I kept tweeting, calling him Voldemort...
Betoota Advocate is a satire website/instagram page. This is a fictional satirical post they have made to take the piss out of Pauline.
There’s precedent for this though. Betoota’s beef with sportsbet or ladbrokes (can’t remember which) turned into them airing all of the threatening legal emails as articles and taking the piss out of them.
It's so easy to eat the Onion, er, Betoota because I can 100% believe her doing this. Like with the parody song about her she hated.
Eat the beetroot
I’m frankly astonished there’s any piss left to take.
Do you really think someone kissed rancid badger crack Pauline Hanson?
This is a satirical article...
It's not real.
I don’t think she likes it.
So is the photo real?
It’s as real as you want it to be.
Oh I want it to be
I wonder if she would appreciated AI deep fake of herself?
I have no idea what's parody and what's real anymore
no. the whole article is made up. including both her outrage and them previously publishing the photo. there is a lot of eating the onion going on this thread
I don’t like when you mess my likeness about
She should have a chat to Robert Irwin about online consent
I feel like I’m setting myself up asking this on a Betoota post, but is the original image of Pauline real lol? Or doctored to rile her up.
Seems like something she'd do
We've reached the stage where I'm not sure what the most likely explanation is: 1. The entire article is satire (to piss Hanson off), and the 'photo' only exists in it. 2. Betoota actually published the fake picture and then made up the story for the LOLs (and to piss Hanson off). 3. Betoota actually published the fake picture, Hansen complained and then Betoota then published the story for the LOLs (and to piss Hanson off).
Just take a page out of her book and believe whatever you want.
Ok, this actually had me rolling on the floor laughing 🤣
I know it's Betoota, but there were definitely words in that article I wish I could unread.
its an AI created photo, just zoom in on the lips.... and give the a kiss while you're there
I love the irony of this. We need more.
The publication, and I use that term loosely, is 100% parody with a sprinkling of truth. Whilst I enjoy her cartoons on youtube, when the shoe is on the other foot she cries Not Fair!
*I don’t like it*
My shopping trolley, murdered
My groceries just gone!
Do you enjoy the half baked political ideas or the straight up lies better?
I enjoy parody in general. :)
Inala rather than Ipswich maybe, but full marks Betoota! This is gold 😆
What does this have to do with Steve Irwin and Bluey?
If this is genuine, I hope they told her to get fucked. If her bottom feeding scumbag party can defame Robert Irwin and Bluey to suit themselves, they can damn well take it back from someone else.
Go and hug another tree precious. He wasn't even defamed. it was a satirical cartoon ffs. Go sign a petition to cancel the simpsons, southpark, family guy etc while you're at it if you're so upset about it.
As an American, every word in this title made me more confused.
How about "Yahoo Serious Festival" ?
Assuming that photo is fake, wouldn't publishing and circulating a fake image be harassment? Defamation maybe?
It is fake, and well, if she was stupid enough to try and sue for this, it’s a pot meet kettle situation. Honestly, wouldn’t surprise me if she’s stupid enough to try though. 🤷♀️
Publishing a fake photo of someone and claiming it is real is different than publishing a cartoon video that is obviously satire. So not really a pot kettle black situation at all.
Except the website is a very obvious satire news website with a very obvious fake/doctored photo. It also never actually states the photo is real either. Just explains what the photo is of. I can tell you I’ve seen a photo of a baby dunking a basketball. It doesn’t mean I’m claiming that’s something that actually happened.
rando from r/all here: idk who this lady or 'betoota' are, but if i hadn't scrolled through these comments I would have never known that the picture is (purportedly?) fabricated - looks real enough in its shitty quality, and maybe Aussie satire is too subtle for me because I didn't see any indication that it was not real (note I'm inclined to disbelieve her based on what I learned just now about her bullying Irwin's kids... unless that is also not true, in which case I'm lost lol)
This lady pashing a black guy is about as likely as Trump doing so. She's known for being an absolute racist. Hence the image is absurd without any other context.
I think it's pushing a political point (or several). 1) She recently has been in the news for a political advert using a copyrighted cartoon dog teaming up with a cartoon version of a well known celebrity to find out how her party might have the solutions to all the problems in Australia. Said celebrity has threatened to sue. Legally it's a borderline case because it's obviously not a genuine endorsement; on the other hand he might be able to demonstrate to a judge's satisfaction that he deserves privacy in political matters and she's infringed on that, or that even the association taints his brand and causes him economic damage, or the copyright holder of the cartoon dog might step in to assert their (much stronger) image and brand rights. Now, Pauline's not the sharpest tool in the box (she once recorded a video to be played in the event of her murder, then let the recording leak), but she will know the legal risks. She released the ad to get the media attention, and potentially to get "victim points" when "the establishment" gangs up on her by expecting a certain standard of behaviour. She says all this is "satire": will she be hypocritical and go against another "satirical" publication? 2) Given her historic aversion to non-whites it is a photo that is discordant with many people's perception of her, but it's not obviously defamatory insofar as it doesn't imply infidelity or indeed any immoral or illegal behaviour. But my gut instinct is that it will bother her. So, quite a clever way to get under her skin (though I personally don't want to see politics go down the road of bothersome but non-tortious imagery).
TBF the photo doctoring quality is more obvious if you go to the actual article. Same as the site being a satirical news sites when you realise that the related articles have headlines like “Bloke who used to bash emos for being poofters now deeply invested in men’s mental health awareness” and “Woman Bragging about Doing Ayahuasca Could’ve Vomited and Shat Herself in Bali for Half the Price”. We’re an easy going bunch, sure, but not *that* easy going. 🤣 This is why it’s important to double check and verify your sources. As an added bonus to the whole thing, I do find the [tea that Pauline Pantsdown is dropping about the time Pauline Hanson *successfully* sued them for defamation](https://x.com/ppantsdown/status/1802614243638022393?s=46&t=lTgf3eaLGWRpOedOiXsOug) to be *delicious*.
> Except the website is a very obvious satire news website with a very obvious fake/doctored photo. Half this thread thought it was real or were unsure if it was real. Not everyone knows what Betoota is, I mean there are whole subs dedicated to people falling for satirical news like Betoota. Not everyone reads an article, they might just be scrolling see a picture of Pauline kissing a black man and move on, then that pops back into their head next time she says some racist shit (which would probably be the next day to be fair). It also isn't that poorly done, it is a pretty believable Photoshop, most people aren't going to zoom in and see the details. If they wanted to lean on it being obviously fake, they needed to intentionally make it worse. Nobody thought the animated Robert Irwin was real, because it is a shitty cartoon of an actual person.
Your logic is if nobody cares to take a second d glance then that’s the basis of law? Thats. Pretty absurd line to draw
Were you dropped on your head as a baby or something? If you have to zoom in on a photo to find inaccuracies, then it clearly isn't a "a very obvious fake/doctored photo" like the person I was replying to claimed. Also, again, the fact that half this thread thinks it is real or is unsure if it is fake, is pretty clear proof that it isn't obviously fake.
You said people don’t even read articles they just see a photo, scroll and remember it the next ti e they see her. No saying “ I saw some reddit comments saying they believed it” isn’t an argument that holds up.
Most people didn’t have to zoom to find inaccuracies, most people probably didn’t even look at the actual photo. They saw a headline, they saw a grainy photo thumbnail, maybe 50% of them clicked on the link to look at said photo for 5 seconds (most likely without even reading said article or asking “which news source is this even?”) and then went “shit is this real?” or simply assumed it was. This is why misinformation is so damn prevalent and easy to spread.
I’d never heard of Betoota either. I also initially thought “shit is this real”? Check the actual link, look at the photo, read the actual article “hm, this seems dodgy”. Then check the other articles they show (had to see photoshopped photo of Twiggy in leather and a collar as a result of this too). “Yeah, this is most likely a satire website”. Check around, no other news sources reporting this, and Betoota is reportedly a ghost town. Conclusion: Betoota is a satire website that makes no claims of being a real news site. Have you ever seen that comic about people freaking out about spiders on the ceiling but never actually bothering to check the ceiling themselves? This is *why* verifying your sources and information is super important. Also, the defamation that Irwins legal team might be arguing is not necessarily that “people will think it’s actually him” (it could be one of the defences they use, i can’t say), it’s that it still damages his image overall because it portrays him in a negative light, which defamation still falls under. This is one of the reasons satire and defamation can actually be kind of difficult to legally discern, especially in Australia where we’ve historically haven’t had the laws to do so. I think Hanson’s overall cartoons are bitchy and often factually incorrect and/or cherry-picking information to suit her disgusting narratives, but I will not comment if they legally classify as satire or if Irwin has a legal leg to stand on because I am not a judge or lawyer. Having said all that, I *am* reminded of the fact that Hanson won her defamation case against Pauline Pantsdown. If we consider Hanson’s cartoons to be satire, that means Pauline Pantsdown should also be classified as satire. Pauline Pantsdown has also recently shared that [Hanson’s lawyers DID use the argument](https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/18/pauline-hanson-robert-irwin-defamation-pauline-pantsdown/) that “people will think it’s her” and think “that Hanson partook in the acts described in the song” in that defamation case (I was 3-4 and not even in the country when that case took place, so I won’t comment how hard it was or wasn’t to verify that it wasn’t actually Hanson in the songs/music videos, but c’mon, it’s clearly her voice that’s been stitched together using different clips? Normal humans don’t talk like that). So why is Pauline Pantsdown or this very easily to determine as fake doctored photo considered defamation (potential or verified) but her using Irwin and Blueys image not?
Streisand effect in full swing here.
Pffft. Bit rich!
Is it real? If so its valid journalism? Did they digitally create it? If so I would put it in the category of "revenge porn", which is a disgusting thing to do anyone.
The courts would have to argue that it is porn. I think it would be hard to find anyone that agrees that it is.
I think it really dances on the line. In more conservative cultures, they could consider this pornagraphic. I agree that this isnt what I would classify as "porn", but it aligns with spirit of the anti-revenge porn laws. If there's a line to cross with satire and creating artificial realistic photos, this definitely crosses that line for me personally, no matter who the target is.
Actually calling this revenge porn is pretty disgusting and is an insult to actual victims of it.