Newspapers - Irresponsible Reporting

[Phil D. Rolls]

If a newspaper prints something about an individual that isn't true, they are bound by rules of defamation, and may have to retract or pay damages.

However, if a newspaper prints untrue stuff about a subject, or object, they can do so with impunity. I am thinking in particular about their reporting of the drugs issue.

The NOTW calls Mephedrome a "killer drug" today. Now it may not be a lethal drug, and it may be a lethal drug. As far as I am aware though there is little known about it.

Granted, I accept the anecdotal evidence I have had about how bad the drug is. However, I feel newspapers should be taken to task for all reporting that is wrong.

There is good reason for this. By running scare campaigns about drugs they actually dilute the message of the people who are trying to police it. A kid hears that Mephedrome is a killer, they will probably think, "well they said that about Cannabis and Ecstasy, so they are just as likely to be wrong here".

The irony is that, the use of libel laws is actually preventing a lot of scientific research, as anyone who feels that it may damage their reputation or business can slap an injunction on the writers. Yet unscientific research such as "evil drug", "killer gyppos" and "polish rapists" can be printed with impunity.

How can this be?

[One Day Soon]

If a newspaper prints something about an individual that isn't true, they are bound by rules of defamation, and may have to retract or pay damages.

However, if a newspaper prints untrue stuff about a subject, or object, they can do so with impunity. I am thinking in particular about their reporting of the drugs issue.

The NOTW calls Mephedrome a "killer drug" today. Now it may not be a lethal drug, and it may be a lethal drug. As far as I am aware though there is little known about it.

Granted, I accept the anecdotal evidence I have had about how bad the drug is. However, I feel newspapers should be taken to task for all reporting that is wrong.

There is good reason for this. By running scare campaigns about drugs they actually dilute the message of the people who are trying to police it. A kid hears that Mephedrome is a killer, they will probably think, "well they said that about Cannabis and Ecstasy, so they are just as likely to be wrong here".

The irony is that, the use of libel laws is actually preventing a lot of scientific research, as anyone who feels that it may damage their reputation or business can slap an injunction on the writers. Yet unscientific research such as "evil drug", "killer gyppos" and "polish rapists" can be printed with impunity.

How can this be?

Because the media are a set of ****s who are the biggest threat to democracy in this country today. They are unaccountable, invasive, irresponsible and - ultimately - no different to any other product for sale be it a fridge, car or chocolate bar. And yet they pretend to be the upholders of truth, news and factual reporting.

Truly stomach turningly revolting.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Because the media are a set of ****s who are the biggest threat to democracy in this country today.

Surely that would be the hundreds of crooked MPs who were exposed by the, er, media?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Surely that would be the hundreds of crooked MPs who were exposed by the, er, media?

Good point, the media do have a role to play. When they act properly as they did with the MPs we have them to thank.

It's the unsubstantiated truths they get away with that bugs me. Even in a situation where there is enough hard facts to do a proper story, many of them resort to making things up.

For example, I doubt if 100s of MPs were exposed by the media, it only seems like that.

[Leicester Fan]

The irony is that, the use of libel laws is actually preventing a lot of scientific research, as anyone who feels that it may damage their reputation or business can slap an injunction on the writers. Yet unscientific research such as "evil drug", "killer gyppos" and "polish rapists" can be printed with impunity.


It doesn't stop any research at all. A scientist can claim 'fair comment' if they can prove their theory and if their research proves that the drug is safe/unsafe why would they print anything to the contrary?

[One Day Soon]

Surely that would be the hundreds of crooked MPs who were exposed by the, er, media?

I think you are confusing two different things. MPs milking their expenses is unacceptable and bad for the reputation of our parliament and our politics. We can vote them out and they are now to be independently regulated.

A media which routinely misrepresents facts to order so as to pursue the agendas of their owners, which invades personal privacy and is accountable to no-one is something which corrodes the capacity of the people to even form accurate judgments on governments, parties and representatives.

Almost every profession in this country is subject to regulation and mostly independent regulation. The press in particular and the media more widely are not. So the press barons can basically do whatever they want to anyone.

Newspapers are the same size everyday. That's not because there is the same amount of news every day. Its because they are a product for sale. That means that they are not independent and unbiased, they are selling news selectively edited and packaged in a way that will appeal to their customers. So they don't report some things at all, they go to town on other things way beyond all reason and other stuff they just plain make up.

[Big Ed]

It doesn't stop any research at all. A scientist can claim 'fair comment' if they can prove their theory and if their research proves that the drug is safe/unsafe why would they print anything to the contrary?

I think that FR may be alluding to the recent libel case taken out by the British Chiropractic Association against a scientist called Simon Singh.
Singh claimed, in an article in The Guardian, that Chiropractors’ claimed to be able to cure such things as colic and ear infections etc.
The Chiropractors took him to Court and initially won, leaving Singh with substantial damages to pay. The fact that a dispute amongst scientists expressing a contrary opinion should end up in a libel action is likely to stifle debate and opinion is, to say the least, unhealthy.
On appeal, Singh won the case, but still must stump up substantial legal costs.
I’m not sure that it will stop research, but it will surely result in a reluctance to be quoted in terms of professionally considered opinion.

[Future17]

Surely that would be the hundreds of crooked MPs who were exposed by the, er, media?

The media didn't actually expose the expenses scandal in the true sense. They didn't do the invetigating - they were handed the information by someone outside the media who had become aware of it and was seeking to have it published.

[Beefster]

The media didn't actually expose the expenses scandal in the true sense. They didn't do the invetigating - they were handed the information by someone outside the media who had become aware of it and was seeking to have it published.

If it wasn't for Heather Brooke, a journalist and campaigner, the guy who leaked the information would never have been in a position to leak it. The information was only being processed as a result of her work to increase parliamentary transparency.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Newspapers are the same size everyday. That's not because there is the same amount of news every day. Its because they are a product for sale. That means that they are not independent and unbiased, they are selling news selectively edited and packaged in a way that will appeal to their customers. So they don't report some things at all, they go to town on other things way beyond all reason and other stuff they just plain make up.

Sorry to shatter your illusions but newspapers are not the same size every day. The size is mainly determined by the amount of advertising booked, though other factors include the number of big breaking stories.

Most newspapers are not charities, they exist to make a profit for their owners/shareholders, so obviously they will try to provide a product that will appeal to their customers - that is a fairly standard business model, is it not?

Of course "they don't report some things at all" - daily newpapers would have to be like telephone directories!

[Phil D. Rolls]

It doesn't stop any research at all. A scientist can claim 'fair comment' if they can prove their theory and if their research proves that the drug is safe/unsafe why would they print anything to the contrary?

I've seen quite a lot reported in Private Eye lately about big drug companies "discouraging" research. What they do is threaten authors with the law, in the full knowledge that the other party will not have the means to fight any court action.