Journalism without due care and attention

[jake-the-peg]

Journalists have to be careful not to libel people but often show a total contempt for accuracy in other stories in their haste to report their stories the way they want them to be seen.

Should we have an offence of wreckless journalism?

The prosecution would have to show that there was either a deliberate intent to mislead or that critical facts were omitted that the journalist would reasonably have been expected to be aware of and that were highly pertinant to the story.

Penalties would be in line with libel awards.

Would it work? Do any other countries have a similar law?

[Gromit]

Newspapers are produced in haste but that is not the reason why many stories are inaccurate. They are deliberately so. When people buy a newspaper they know/ or should know it is biased. There is no law that says reporting should be balanced, and I would not want one. The resulting newspapers would be very dull.

My only reservation is when a newspaper sustains a long campaign which is clearly misleading its readers with a lot of misinformation and because that newspaper is one of the best selling, lies are accepted by the majority as being true. That situation is very dangerous.

[Oneeyedvic]

Journalists have to be careful not to libel people

Not True.

Journalists have to be careful not to libel people that are rich enough to take libel action usually over �200,000

[China Doll]

It'd be hard to prove wouldn't it? What with all the 'undisclosed sources.' Plus I'[m not sure of how much difference it will make. When you think of all the times Private Eye has been proved right or how many times papers have been fined, if it could work you'd think that those papers sales would drop because they've been discredited and that certainly doesn't seem to happen. Daily Mail is proof of that alas.

Also, it may be a journalist that wrote the story but what if they were leaned on, so to speak, from higher up. It would be wrong to prosecure the journalist in question and have another culprit get away scott free. Although perhaps there's the solution... If it was the editor who got in to trouble and had to fork out from their own personal monies, maybe they'd take the trouble of checking some of their stories.

[Theland1]

It might help if by law there was an obligation for newspapers and T.V. news stations etc, to provide a channel / slot / page where opposing views could be aired.
For example, Sky news was extremely biased against the Israelis during the last Lebanon war, and provided Hizbollah with a propaganda platform.

[jno]

Britain already has some of the toughest libel laws in the world. If you're libelled in an American book or newspaper it's seldom worth trying to sue there; but if any copies are sold in Britain, even only a few, sensible victims always start a lawsuit here because there's a much better chance of winning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/15/bo oks.usa

That doesn't really answer your question. Newspapers certainly twist the truth. There is a Press Complaints Commission, but as it's made up of newspaper editors, I wouldn't bother trying them if you've been maligned. Yes, I think people should have some sort of redress.

[ludwig]

Anything that seeks to curb the worst behaviour of the scumbag gutterpress has got to be a good thing, but I suspect there would be too many practical difficulties in enforcing such a law.

Ultimately the price we pay for having a free press that performs a useful service to society is that we have to put up with their garbage to a certain extent.