As another Paper admits lying

[Oneeyedvic]

Is it time that legislation was brought in for the fourth Estate? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/75285 22.stm TV personality Kerry Katona has been awarded substantial damages over newspaper claims she worked as a prostitute before she was famous. The former Atomic Kitten singer has accepted an undisclosed amount following the libel case against the Sunday Mirror at London's High Court. The newspaper ran a story on 22 June which said Katona's mother intended to publish a book including the claims. It published an apology on Sunday, and said the claim was "entirely false".

[squarebear]

The thing is, they make more money from selling the story than they do from the fines. So it will continue unabated until heavier penalities are imposed.

[Oneeyedvic]

Is it time to make this a criminal offence (to print articles which are factually inaccurate or deliberately misleaeding) and therefore the Editor and journalist has the threat of prison?

[Gromit]

Fortunately Ms Katona is wealthy and can afford to sue for libel and will no doubt be compensated for the slur. If she had lost the case she could have afforded the fees from her wealth.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for most of us. If a newspaper printed lies about you or me, we would have to risk a lot of money fighting the case, knowing that the newspaper would probably hire a lawyer who gets paid more in one week that we do in a year. If we lost, we would lose a lot, if they lose, they so 'Oh well, nevermind".

This is because you cannot get Legal Aid to sue for libel.

[Ethel]

The newspaper, in this instance, published in good faith information it bought from Kerry's mother.

I hope they sue her to get their fee back at least.

[youngmafbog]

The big problem is always 'did they print in good faith' In some cases it is obvious but others not so. If you threaten editors with jail then where will that lead? Would they publish the facts they find about key public figures that really is in the public interest. I doubt it.

This Government controls us too much. Please dont give them yet another excuse to move closer to a Police state by censoring our newspapers.

[keyplus90]

squarebear is absolutely right. Newspaper make more money than they pay as compensation. Because unfortunately many of us will jump on these stories. So even after paying they still made some money, I am sure.

[Booldawg]

Its mostly the tabloids, which most level-headed people take with a pinch of salt anyway.

Stop buying the tripe would be the best way to get them towing the line.

[DungeonJayne]

Normal people read The Guardian.

[jno]

the News of the World sells more than 3 million copies a week at, what, �1? Sorry, I don't know the price. Anyway, the �60,000 they will have to pay that nice Mr Mosley will come from petty cash. But they may have to pay a million or so to the lawyers, which will hurt them more, but not exactly bankrupt them.

However, he now plans to sue them for libel. If he wins - and a jury may think he's had enough money already and rule against him - he stands to get quite a bit more.

[DungeonJayne]

RaggyRoman ... before Kerry put on so much weight, she was very pretty ...

http://www.pornsexland.com/d/kerry-katona/kerr y-kantona-pics/kerry-katona0010.jpg

... and she's got great tits.

[jake-the-peg]

It wouldn't be the government censoring the newspapers it would be the courts.

Right now the newspapers smell blood and are hounding the government with campaigns that they're pushing for purely political purposes like the current knife crime fad.

And in case I'm accused of being partisan it's "Dangerous dogs" all over again - which they hounded (:c) the Major government over!

We've had the "illegal raves" campaigns and "extacy" and going back to Maggies day we were all going to be murdered in our beds by Jamacian Yardies I recall.

I agree the penaties are insufficiently harsh perhaps loss of a publication would be more appropriate - Courts fine a proportion of a person's income - why not a publisher?

[raysparx1]

As I have said before until the couts have the power to shut down a paper for printing ficticious crap it will never end, sensationalism sells papers, they make a fortune from printing lies, they are fined a few thousand, wow that hurt, another crock of crap will be coming out next week, roll up roll up get your papers here, and what happens,? they sell another few million papers, they are laughing all the way to the bank, so it will never ever end.

[Oneeyedvic]

raysparx - that is exactly the point - a few thousand won't hurt them - imprisonment for an editor will.

As Jake mentions, this is not about government control, but court control.

Currently, if a paper prints anything, it can pretty much 'get away with it'. In my opinion that needs to be stopped.

I have no issues with a paper printing things in the public interest if it is true. That is obviously not happening at the moment.

Bring back proper journalism.

[raysparx1]

What you say Vic I agree with 100%, my wife used to work in fleet street, back in the 60s, and the editors were allowed to edit, and did edit, not saying ficticious stories never appeared back then, but it was basically an "Honest" profession, things have changed now and it is all about who can get the most ridiculous or scandalous headline, and if no big stories break, dig up some crap or make a small story a big story. and what you don't know, make it up, it stinks, I never buy a paper anymore and have no intention of ever doing so again.

[gelda]

Nice one RaggyRoman !!

[LeedsRhinos]

Instead of fining them why not stop them printing for a week as a punishment ?

[IggyB]

to take someones liberty away you would need to prove the case "beyond all reasonable doubt" - i suggest any half decent lawyer could bring up just enough doubt regarding an editors motives and involvment etc that it would be impossible to be certain without any doubts whatsoever...

but asides from that i don't think the criminal code should be utilised in such a way - i personally don't think its appropriate or necessary to try and punish poor journalism in the same way we punish violence or theft.

[Oneeyedvic]

So ruining someone's reputation is okay, but stealing some nail polish from Boots is terrible?