Smear campaigns.

Have been going on for years. Some by the left wing Mirror group newspapers against selected right wingers, but have largely been conducted by the right wing press owned by Murdoch or the Mail  edited by Dacre, both of whom hate Corbyn, and tried (and failed) to smear Miliband with lies about his late father.
My question is, what should happen to newspapers, and in particular, editors, who deliberatly allow lies to be published during a smear campaign?
If proven, they should be sacked and stripped of their publishing licence.

Okay Andy, why did Corbyn, at enquiry, apologise for saying Hamas and Hezbiollah were his friends?

Is that me concerned he once did call terrorists his friends or me smearing him?

Has anything I posted about him been a lie?

No

What is more worrying, is that you are not bothered whether he was friends with such organisations. You are more concerned about defending his image. Than actually asking important questions about him and his beliefs, ideals..

Rather than deflecting by asking whether you are lying, try answering the actual question.
A clue. It is the sentence ending with a ?.
You are as evasive as Theresa May.

Tommy Monk wrote:Leftys/labour are the masters of propaganda, deception, lies and spin...

"Coming from the king of liars, that is hilarious"

Angry Andy wrote:Rather than deflecting by asking whether you are lying, try answering the actual question.
A clue.  It is the sentence ending with a ?.
You are as evasive as Theresa May.

You want me to answer such a dumb question?

I will answer it by asking you a question.

Do you think people should be criminalized for lying printing stories?

A thought crime?

I do not believe we should. I do believe people have the right to sue them, if they were lying. Should they be sacked? Absolutely, if found guilty of knowingly printing such lies.

Will you say the same, if Corbyn is found guilty of spying though?

I do however respect the rights of people to condemn liars

I happen to allow people to make up their minds, over what they think, if they find out someone is lying.
In other words, when a media source lies and then does not admit to this. Then you allow the public to decide what to do. In that they either forgive that media source for lying or they decide to not have anything more to do with that source.

So lets go back to my original points shall we?

Okay Andy, why did Corbyn, at enquiry, apologise for saying Hamas and Hezbiollah were his friends?

Is that me concerned he once did call terrorists his friends or me smearing him?

Has anything I posted about him been a lie?

No

What is more worrying, is that you are not bothered whether he was friends with such organisations. You are more concerned about defending his image. Than actually asking important questions about him and his beliefs, ideals..


Maybe you can also show its not in the public interest to print claims made by former spies?


That we should instead try to censur such claims?

If the articles were not true why aren't the persons named not suing for Libel ?

nicko wrote:If the articles were not true why aren't the persons named not suing for Libel ?

In the case of the contentious Daily Mail article - an opinion piece written by journalist Geoffrey Levy and not a news item in which facts, mistakes and deliberate untruths could more easily have been determined - Ralph Miliband could not have sued because he was dead and the Daily Mail, quite rightly, gave Ed Miliband the right of reply.

Generally, people do not sue newspapers or broadcasters for a number of reasons; one is that there is often an element of truth in an allegation ((journalists do routinely and thoroughly research their subjects and know that they may be called on to substantiate what they write and say) and secondly, as libel is a civil as opposed to criminal matter, a loser faces being hit very, very hard financially with court costs alone.

There is also the likelihood that the newspaper and its defence team would dig out far more about the complainant than he or she would wish to be revealed in court and under the protection of privilege. Very few cupboards are devoid of skeletons...

In the article in question the Miliband famliy could not reasonably challenge the principal elements - that Ralph Miliband was a Marxist (he was) who in the past had, according to Levy's research (which he could no doubt have substantiated) written disparagingly about the British and their war effort and also the British institutions of the Monarchy, Church and military. I believe that at one stage he had also called for a "workers' revolution."

Nothing illegal in that, of course, but Levy's article questioned - and quite rightly in my opinion - what influence their father's opinions and philosophy might well have had on his sons David and Ed, both of whom were potentially Prime Ministers of this country.

Where the Daily Mail was unfair, again in my opinion, was in the headline (which would not have been written by Levy): The man who hated Britain. That may well have been a matter of conjecture, but it certainly cannot have been shown to be factually correct.