Manc

John Major should have been locked up for his own sanity for even thinking about Edwina Currie in the buff.

dgsyd1

I always thought "Fair & Balanced" was a pretty funny line.

Franklin

Apparently John Major's wife was also not keen on her hubby having such thoughts! One later article I seem to recall reading went so far as saying it was his wife that read the riot act to him and told him to keep Edwina Currie out of the cabinet. But think about it, Major sued a newspaper for fingering the wrong woman. Major was in fact not true to his wife, but he still won the case ... wouldn't happen in the USA. I seem to recall some other British newspaper getting sued by Clint Eastward for publishing pictures of his legs - he was playing tennis and (again I am relying on memory of what I read maybe once several years ago) argued successfully in an English court that his reputation was harmed by publishing such photos - oh trash, Clint would get nowhere with a suit like that in the USA.

Also, it is hard for British papers to publish criticisms of corporate UK even if true. A company can sue based on harm to its reputation ... anyone recall that absolutely stupid McDonald's case that went on and on and on in some English court, some defamation or libel (maybe both) about some out of work couple who said and/or wrote something bad about their products ... would never happen in the USA, any newspaper can write what they like providing they don't do so with malice or reckless disregard as to the truth; meaning they only have to think they are publishing true facts to be on the right side of New York Times Sullivan standard. A large corporation in the US is regarded as a public figure and so the NY Times standard applies. Not so in England and Wales, no sirreee. Write something about a corporation’s product line and watch the wigs fly.

Franklin

Well, Fox ratings seem to be doing OK out of it. Like him or hate him, his Sky and Fox news channels seem to do well. Meanwhile ... here is a line that might catch on, "The BBC, news at the speed of lies". I've lost count of the number of articles that I have read or seen on the BBC that had clear factual errors and "made news" rather than reported news. I seem to recall one of the BBC radio programs did that, actually aimed to "make news" than report it. John Humphrys of Radio 4's "Today", such a conceited arrogant twat. OK Mr. Humphreys, please sue me, please. I could do with the publicity! Also, I would like to tear into you during an interview.

anotherlimey

Surely that's a good thing? No news outlets should be allowed to claim anything without backing it up, otherwise it wouldn't be news.

I guess John Major's lawyers argued that he didn't have an affair with that woman, rather than not having an affair at all, isn't that what lawyers are supposed to do?

-tom

fatbrit

You might find the thread here interesting as an upside-down perspective.

tony126

Yes, interesting. I looked at the opening thread by Naeem(anti American?) which sets the tone for what follows. It does not change my viewpoint, like a lot of viewpoints would not change on that site no matter what was said. I also refer to the Sky News web-site for info. The two together are as good a balance as I think I am going to get.

nxylas

And isn't Rupe pissed off about that? I understand that he is lobbying hard to change the law, just as conservatives here managed to get the FCC's "fairness doctrine" abolished so that they could take over the airwaves.

fatman

hey I watched the documentary outfoxed a while back, very interesting. Personally I think if you want to get news about world events then I don't understand why you'd even watch fox as all it ever shows is reports about the bloody weather.

Rupert Murdoch is to Journalism what Serutan is to your body. i.e it makes it shit.

rincewind

RLMAO!!!

I saw Out Foxed to and it was an interesting opinion on the Fox News Network. I think what would have made that documentary better would have been to examine all of the main news networks. Fox, CNN, BBC, Sky News, etc. as a comparison with out it seeming to be a Democratic attack at the Republicans. After all, they do complain about the "fair and balanced" comments so why not do it in the movie to?

I haven't watched Fox News in months and will never watch it again. It's a sad fact but it you want fair and balanced, watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Bob

yeah, but at least he's supposed to be funny

fatman

I agree the documentary would have been better if it examined all the news networks.... it probably is hard to make a documentary about Fox without it seeming to be a democratic rant against the Republicans, but then I guess that just shows that Fox really is that partisan that if you attack Fox you attack the Republicans. I don't think any news channel, even Sky news that is also owned by Murdoch is as bad as Fox.
and that Bill O'Reilly what an utter ****, still at least he's getting what he deserves now.

Franklin

The issue raised was that there was greater freedom of the press in Europe than in the USA. This is a nonsense, a newspaper here in the USA can publish just about anything it wants about a member of the government whereas in the UK the newspapers don't have this advantage. In the USA the U.S. S. Ct. believes in the free market place of ideas and letting the people choose what they want to believe.

In contrast in the UK members of the British cabinet have frequently sued British newspapers, even Robert Maxwell successfully sued Private Eye - Robert Maxwell was a criminal and up to no good and a newspaper should have been free to question his motives and to accuse him of whatever. In the USA - if a newspaper thinks there is bad things going on then the newspaper is free to publish its views without fear of paying out massive damages. In France if a newspaper says bad things about a high government official the courts can impose very heavy fines, not so in the USA so long as the US newspaper stands on the right side of NY Times Co. v Sullivan standard.

And no it isn't a good thing. The British newspapers had a gut feeling that Robert Maxwell was a pig, bully, criminal but few dare print what they thought, in the USA any newspaper could have published that Robert Maxwell was up to no good so long as they stood the right side of Sullivan. Private Eye ("PE") was nearly wiped out by Maxwell (I think Maxwell won substantial damages from PE for suggesting he looked like a criminal) ... this could not happen in the USA, PE could have published that Maxwell was a criminal up to no good and deserved to be jailed. Such comments are published about many members of the Bush administration - isn't that a good thing? In the UK if a newspaper published such things about Blair or members of his cabinet the libel lawyers would be raking it in. Not so here in the USA, where a newspaper can call a President what it likes without fear of massive libel payouts. On this board many refer to Bush as a vile evil man with no morals and happy to send young men and women to their deaths, say that about Blair in a British newspaper and Blair will be very happy to relieve said newspaper of a lot of money. Look at what Maxwell did to Private Eye for merely suggesting he looked like a criminal (when in fact he was a criminal!).

It is laughable to say, for example, that British newspapers have greater freedom to publish what they think of certain British politicians vv what US newspapers can write about US politicians. The facts clearly point to greater freedom of the press in the USA than in, for example, England and Wales. I and many others have been aware of rampant corruption among certain elected counsellors in a certain part of England/Wales. Yet the local newspapers can't publish what they believe is taking place because they must be able to prove that it is taking place or risk MASSIVE DAMAGES in a libel case. Likewise UK corporations can pounce on an unemployed couple for saying, for example, that they are cruel to animals. Such a case brought in the USA would be laughed out of court. Any newspaper can publish that McDonalds are cruel to animals, not so in the UK where McDonalds will sue and seek damages for printing such "nonsense", the newspapers would have to prove that McDonalds is in fact cruel to animals, whereas in the USA the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the newspaper(s) knowingly published a falsehood or acted with malice or acted with reckless disregard of the truth, a very high burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff - NOT THE DEFENDANT!

Bob

Not necessarily a good thing though is it, making someone look bad without having the onus of proof could cripple a perfectly innocent person who might not be in a situation to afford to defend themselves....anyway, newspapers in the states might have "more freedom", doesn't seem to stop them from being crapper newspapers though does it...

Franklin

Free market place of ideas. The people have the right to choose what they want to believe. The US media has FAR GREATER freedom than, for example, in England and Wales.

In England and Wales there have been numerous concerns about rampant misuse of public office, but local newspapers are very relunctant to put anything into hardcopy/print. This is totally wrong and extremly harmful to the fabric of a free society. British newspapers should not feel intimidated about publishing allegations about public officials. This chilling effect is an affront to democracy. Often things about the government can't be published in the UK without fear of litigation and massive damages/payouts.

But yeah sure, there are crap articles and crap news organs. But as a matter of law and public policy, a newsaper in the USA is free to publish serious doubts about a public figure or a corporation, this freedom does not exist in England and Wales, in the USA the emphasis is on the free market place of ideas (U.S. S. Ct.). In contrast, if any British newspaper published Blair was a liar, toe-rag, uncaring demonic criminal with no morals about sending men and women into harms way it is quite likely that said newspaper will be on the sharp end of pretty intense litigation.