On 24 Jul, 23:41, "The Todal" wrote:
> "MM" wrote in message
>
> news:6msi84lbub3qtmtp3qj4io92hvmcl32ejn@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:52:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
> > wrote:
>
> >>The Todal wrote:
>
> >>> Myler (Editor of the News of the World) said the paper believed its
> >>> coverage was legitimate and lawful. "The judge has ruled that Mr
> >>> Mosley's activities did not involve Nazi role-play as we had
> >>> reported, but has acknowledged that the News of the World had an
> >>> honest belief that a Nazi theme was involved during the orgy," Myler
> >>> said.
>
> >>> I don't think the judge mentions "honest belief" at all. =EF=BF=BDSur=
ely
> >>> there can never be anything honest about the News of the World?
>
> >>The News of the World is subject to just the same laws of the land as a=
ny
> >>other newspaper. =EF=BF=BDIt has to work within the libel laws just as =
anyone
> >>else.
> >>Sometimes, because it is working at the margins, it will overstep the
> >>mark,
> >>just as Private Eye occasionally does, and it gets punished. =EF=BF=BDH=
owever,
> >>since
> >>both publications get caned so infrequently, that is actually evidence =
of
> >>the care they take.
>
> >>You may still call them dishonest, but if you want a free press that is
> >>prepared to disclose scandal and hypocrisy, you shouldn't be too harsh.
> >>If
> >>such publications disappear, we might just as well have a state-run pre=
ss.
>
> > Do we REALLY need to know about Max Mosley's .ual predilections? I
> > don't think so. I think they should be his own private business, and
> > that is the outcome of the case against the NOTW. All the bollocks now
> > being spouted by the newspapers that they are now censored (by
> > Brussels") is just that, bollocks.
>
> I heard a timid solicitor from Schillings being interviewed on Radio 4 th=
is
> morning, agreeing that many scandals in the past such as John Prescott
> bonking his secretary or David Mellor having an affair, wouldn't be
> publishable now because of the privacy laws. =EF=BF=BDRubbish. Why can't =
they find a
> good barrister instead of these lightweight experts? =EF=BF=BDIt is perfe=
ctly clear
> that the more important your target, the more power he has, the more you
> will be justified in exposing his infidelity or hypocrisy. =EF=BF=BDIt wo=
n't be
> enough to say that a chap is a company director or in charge of a sportin=
g
> organisation, unless he does something rather extreme like worship the
> Nazis. If a chap is running a government department it is certainly
> important to infringe his privacy by showing that he seduces members of h=
is
> staff.
>
> The trouble is, we rely on the newspapers to explain these court rulings =
to
> us. Few if any will read the original court judgment. But if you rely on =
a
> journalist to explain the law to you, well, you may as well ask the cat.-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the paper had merely reported the facts instead of publishing a
video and larding the story with 'Nazis' it would probably have won. |