|
|
posted 15-07-2008 21:39
|
|
|
Please report that, I'd quite like the £500k libel damages for someone reporting it then repeating it, when it turns out to be complete bollocks.
Investigative journalists note: of course I fucking haven't got the McCann girl in my basement.
Sun/Star/Express/NotW journalists: Yes, I have!
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 15-07-2008 21:49
|
|
|
link please?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 15-07-2008 22:32 By Rogin the Armchair Fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 16-07-2008 09:03
|
|
|
The Express splash that was something like MADDIE SUSPECT BEHAVED JUST LIKE HUNTLEY was absolutely disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 16-07-2008 09:04
|
|
|
You've got to wonder, though. Do these libel damages actually outweigh the extra papers sold because of the lurid allegations and innuendo? Probably for the Express, given the last case, but for the others they're probably in the black.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 16-07-2008 09:42
|
|
|
It's a difficult calculus, especially if you add legal costs (which are often significantly larger than the damages), but these papers definitely see this kind of thing as a cost of doing business. We've talked before about ridiculously dependent the Express was on the Maddie story, and my sense is that for a paper like the NOTW, losing libel cases every now and then is part of "building their brand".
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 16-07-2008 09:55
|
|
|
It certainly is for Private Eye.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 16-07-2008 09:55
|
|
|
I think I remember that the Express' sales shot up on the day that they published their front page apology to the McCanns, leading to speculation that Desmond might have thought it was a strategy worth repeating.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MESSAGE BOARD 
Favoured: 0
