So how has this worked in today's world? Badly -- some people aren't interested in the truth, ignore it when told, and preferring "feel good" fake news. Example: Faith.
Apparently Canada has a law against false news, and as a result there is no Faux Noise Nutwerk there.
It is easier to overcome lies when they are not given a grandstand to shout from.
And how does it work in the real world when you make it too easy to sue journalists for lying? Organisations with large legal budgets shut down criticism from those who do not have the funds to defend themselves against lawsuits; while publishers who do have the budgets refuse to publish things they think will subject them to lawsuits as a cost-saving measure.
Case in point, the below was from an Executive Publisher at Cambridge University Press explaining why they had decided not to publish research on Vladimir Putin's links to organised crime (as quoted in
The Economist)
quote:
A defamatory statementin this case, a potential libelis a false statement that undermines the reputation of the person about whom the statement is made. In a court of law, the fact-finder cannot just accept the writer or publisher’s assertion that a statement is true. In England in particular, a libel claimant can require the writer and publisher to prove truth, which in the case of your book, would be extremely difficult to do for many of the claims you make. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say, but we believe the risk is high that those implicated in the premise of the bookthat Putin has a close circle of criminal oligarchs at his disposal and has spent his career cultivating this circlewould be motivated to sue and could afford to do so. Even if the Press was ultimately successful in defending such a lawsuit, the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.
President Putin has never been convicted for the crimes or activities which are outlined in the book, and we cannot be sure that any of the other named individuals or organisations have either. That the allegations may have been published elsewhere is no defence; re-publication of a libellous statement is still libel if it cannot be proven to be true.
We did consider asking an expert outside lawyer to thoroughly review the manuscript and provide detailed suggestions about how it could be rewritten. However, this would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover, given the controversial subject matter of the book, and its basic premise that Putin's power is founded on his links to organised crime, we are not convinced that there is a way to rewrite the book that would give us the necessary comfort.
™ Version 4.2
