On the 13th of Oct. a question had been tabled by an MP in Parliament, but that the newspaper could not reveal “who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found”.
The reason, it explained no less cryptically, was that “legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret”. This practice of gagging newspapers has recently become more in fashion in the UK. With stricter precedent being set with every high profile libel case, restrictions on the "free press" seem to be going in an unfavourable way for the media.
However the net is increasingly making it harder for celebrities to keep their dirty laundry out of the public eye. If reporters are shut down by their editors due to the legal implications of their potential story, they can take the high-road and blog.
With the monetization of blogs getting easier, a newspaper reporter can make a living with a high-traffic news blog - and keep his journalistic principles intact.
A good example of how trying to gag the press has backfired on a person, is the case of Barbra Streisand.
"An incident in which Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photograph of her house removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns. Adelman stated that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially and it became popular on the Internet, with more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the next month." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Hence the term the "Streisand effect".
A recent law for journalists lecture left me wary of ensuing with my potential plan to offend everything and everyone on my blog.
The restrictions on journalism in the UK seems to have made it harder for the media to ruin someone's reputation without major consequences.
High-profile individuals from the US have taken it upon themselves to cross the pond just so they can sue for libel.
The O.C.D like tendencies of our courts to cover every possible scenario in which someone can be libelled, make it a haven for sensitive celebrities.
So what if I call Pete Doherty an alcoholic, crack-head criminal?
Can he sue me?
I don't think so. I can argue that each one the statements aforementioned are justifiable.
All I have to do is check the back catalogue of The Sun, for the last couple of years.
The Sun is good for something after all....
l.w
The reason, it explained no less cryptically, was that “legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret”. This practice of gagging newspapers has recently become more in fashion in the UK. With stricter precedent being set with every high profile libel case, restrictions on the "free press" seem to be going in an unfavourable way for the media.
However the net is increasingly making it harder for celebrities to keep their dirty laundry out of the public eye. If reporters are shut down by their editors due to the legal implications of their potential story, they can take the high-road and blog.
With the monetization of blogs getting easier, a newspaper reporter can make a living with a high-traffic news blog - and keep his journalistic principles intact.
A good example of how trying to gag the press has backfired on a person, is the case of Barbra Streisand.
"An incident in which Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photograph of her house removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns. Adelman stated that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially and it became popular on the Internet, with more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the next month." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Hence the term the "Streisand effect".
A recent law for journalists lecture left me wary of ensuing with my potential plan to offend everything and everyone on my blog.
The restrictions on journalism in the UK seems to have made it harder for the media to ruin someone's reputation without major consequences.
High-profile individuals from the US have taken it upon themselves to cross the pond just so they can sue for libel.
The O.C.D like tendencies of our courts to cover every possible scenario in which someone can be libelled, make it a haven for sensitive celebrities.
So what if I call Pete Doherty an alcoholic, crack-head criminal?
Can he sue me?
I don't think so. I can argue that each one the statements aforementioned are justifiable.
All I have to do is check the back catalogue of The Sun, for the last couple of years.
The Sun is good for something after all....
l.w
Comments (0)
Post a Comment