scrapdo -bungee up -scrapdo -
Not really. He'll get paid nothing for this.
As much as this incompetent BS isn't fair to him, he'd have to prove malicious intent. That the reporter/paper knew it wasn't true but printed it anyway. I think we all know that isn't what happened here, it's mistaken identity. It's different than a case like the Sandmann kid, where they had no reason to believe he was doing anything they reported and decided to create a fictional story.
It sounds like you know what you're talking about so I'll ask you, is that true ?
Is that pretty much the only criteria for the media to get any kind of repremand ?
If so that's shit and it's no wonder the media is such a shit show these day's.
It seems like there should be some punishment for flagrant recklessness.
That would not have been the most difficult thing to get right and fact check 100%.
They should have to prove they did everything within reason to get the facts right.
The burden of proving they were innocent should be on them. They fucked up. Innocent until proven guilty should no longer apply. It's like if a cop pulled you over for speeding. You can't I'm not paying that. Prove it in court ! You would have to go to court and prove that you weren't speeding with a dash cam or witness/s ect . Not the other way around.
If the situation is something like. We were talking to our correspondent and the phone line was a bit shaky. All i heard was crackle crackle Nate crackle crackle MMA... Those fuckers should be 100% held accountable. That shit is lible ( I think it's spelt) straight up.
If there isn't a law against irresponsible journalism then there should be. No?
Should be, sure. But the devil's advocate would say if we punish too harshly those who get stories wrong, they may stop reporting on those with the power to sue. I think our best bet would be to ostracize the entities that pull shit like this. But it's been going on since the beginning of time.
I understand that as a retort but I don't agree. As long as they can prove due diligence then there should/ would not be any issue and they would have a solid case to win. I don't think it would be a change for the worse at all.
My main question is , is that really the only grounds upon which they can be sued ? If so , especially in this day and age. That shit needs revision.