3 ms·

There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The Guardian won't even repeat, let alone attempt to refute, anything pu

by Natsu 10y ago

There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The Guardian won't even repeat, let alone attempt to refute, anything published in the Daily Mail. Just let that sink in for a moment: the Guardian is unable to dispute the Daily Mail on a factual level on this one. Instead they talk about everything and anything else rather than discuss the actual subject matter in the reports. "Nothing to see here, move along!" But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. And this would hardly be the first real news broken by a tabloid. We live in interesting times. I just hope they're not the "interesting times" from that fictitious Chinese curse.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The usual saying is, "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table."
- Natsu 10y ago
  Yeah, that's the one. Thank you.
- ternaryoperator 10y ago
  The quote appears to be from Carl Sandburg[1] The variant I've heard is: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, get a new client." [1] http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1 http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1
DanBC 10y ago
We don't need the Grauniad to refute stuff in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will print a full page front page, and then retract it in a tiny correction six months later on page 12. From New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor. > This year, [2014] the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. Here's another example: A columnist accused a muslim family of being extremists. That was libel. She tweeted her apology at 2am. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitter-apology-muslim-family-extremism-links-mail-online-column-a7484436.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitt... I think the apology for incorrect claims should take as much space as the original claim. If you print a 92point headline on the front page that's libellous you should print the apology in 92 point on the front page. EDIT: And about libel in England. You need to be able to prove what you say is true. In the context of "false news" that doesn't seem to burdensome for newspapers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Hmm, that's true, though, isn't it? They'd be able to sue under UK libel laws if it wasn't true. You're certainly right that the Daily Mail isn't someone I'd trust much, but this sort of thing ought to be verifiable--I mean, the courts themselves may well have public documents regarding cases put before them, etc.
anigbrowl 10y ago
OK, but why should we take the Daily Mail's say-so that this factual subject matter is of great significance? (And if it is, would they be OK with similar investigations into the private lives of the Daily Mail's editors or publishers?) Seems to me you're in such a hurry to have a trial that you've decided not to wait for a crime to take place.
- Natsu 10y ago
  I don't and I haven't. My point is more to how they're creating a Streisand effect via their conduct. No one is on trial here (unless there are still court proceedings I don't know of), but my point is more around how trying to refute something without discussing the allegations or any kind of evidence just makes it look like you're doing a cover-up, even if that's not your intent. But there was a crime alleged here: embezzlement. Whether that was true or not I do not know, but it would seem like someone could check the legal documents. There might even be two (or more) crimes if any of these documents were sealed by the court. I'm kind of surprised no one is interested in checking that out or discussing this for what is to be one of the biggest and most important fact-checking outfits on the planet with the upcoming Facebook deal.

by Natsu 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The usual saying is, "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table."

Natsu 10y ago
Yeah, that's the one. Thank you.
ternaryoperator 10y ago
The quote appears to be from Carl Sandburg[1] The variant I've heard is: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, get a new client." [1] http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1 http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1

DanBC 10y ago

We don't need the Grauniad to refute stuff in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will print a full page front page, and then retract it in a tiny correction six months later on page 12. From New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor. > This year, [2014] the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. Here's another example: A columnist accused a muslim family of being extremists. That was libel. She tweeted her apology at 2am. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitter-apology-muslim-family-extremism-links-mail-online-column-a7484436.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitt... I think the apology for incorrect claims should take as much space as the original claim. If you print a 92point headline on the front page that's libellous you should print the apology in 92 point on the front page. EDIT: And about libel in England. You need to be able to prove what you say is true. In the context of "false news" that doesn't seem to burdensome for newspapers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

Natsu 10y ago
Hmm, that's true, though, isn't it? They'd be able to sue under UK libel laws if it wasn't true. You're certainly right that the Daily Mail isn't someone I'd trust much, but this sort of thing ought to be verifiable--I mean, the courts themselves may well have public documents regarding cases put before them, etc.

anigbrowl 10y ago

OK, but why should we take the Daily Mail's say-so that this factual subject matter is of great significance? (And if it is, would they be OK with similar investigations into the private lives of the Daily Mail's editors or publishers?) Seems to me you're in such a hurry to have a trial that you've decided not to wait for a crime to take place.

Natsu 10y ago
I don't and I haven't. My point is more to how they're creating a Streisand effect via their conduct. No one is on trial here (unless there are still court proceedings I don't know of), but my point is more around how trying to refute something without discussing the allegations or any kind of evidence just makes it look like you're doing a cover-up, even if that's not your intent. But there was a crime alleged here: embezzlement. Whether that was true or not I do not know, but it would seem like someone could check the legal documents. There might even be two (or more) crimes if any of these documents were sealed by the court. I'm kind of surprised no one is interested in checking that out or discussing this for what is to be one of the biggest and most important fact-checking outfits on the planet with the upcoming Facebook deal.