Trial by newspapers is not justice, says Chris Bryant

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42015944

A Welsh MP has condemned "trial by newspapers" as MPs debated new plans to combat harassment at Westminster.

Labour's Chris Bryant told the Commons about his own experiences in 2003, when a newspaper published a photo of him in just his underpants.

The Rhondda MP said a journalist later told him reporters were taking bets on when he would kill himself.

He said revelations in the press did not offer justice to those claiming abuse, or to those who were accused.

"My biggest anxiety of all is that you have to have justice for both sides," Mr Bryant told the Commons on Thursday.

"If we just have trial by the newspapers, or trial by front page, that is not justice for the young people, or for the people who feel that they've been abused and want to make allegations.

"Nor is it justice for those at the other end."

Referring to his own treatment by the press in 2003, Mr Bryant told MPs about a journalist "coming up to me in Strangers Bar and saying 'we're all taking bets on when you'll commit suicide. I hope it'll be before Christmas'."

In reply, Commons leader Andrea Leadsom said she was sorry to hear about Mr Bryant's experiences.

"That is really, truly appalling and we all recognise there is a challenge here with living in the public eye," she said.

"Unfortunately allegations which are either spurious or indeed malicious or designed to hurt can be made at individuals - and that's not right."

Earlier, Mr Bryant complained that a working party set up to create new rules on harassment at Westminster did not include gay or lesbian members, and that the politicians on it were senior in the parliamentary hierarchy.

Mrs Leadsom said the working party was "seeking to ensure there is justice for all", adding that the new guidelines were designed to protect those who work in Parliament at all levels, regardless of their sexuality or race.

I imagine a lot on here will agree with this

[Grimbold21]

Or trial by social media

[Deletedaccount1]

I only support trials by combat.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

All trials should be conducted in MMO-C Gen OT.

[melodramocracy]

People seem largely ok with verdict via public opinion as long as they believe there's some level of comeuppance involved, the accused is already disliked, or they aren't involved directly.

If the lack of scrutiny displayed in the current hot-topic sexual assault allegations was carried out on a local level, people would suddenly have a very big problem with it.

[Crissi]

I'm torn. Trial by newspaper is indeed a terrible thing. However, it took a newspaper and proper investigative journalists to blow the Baylor scandal wide open.

So...sometimes its necessary if its being covered up on a very wide scale.

[Independent voter]

They just outed Charlie Rose, the guy opposite from Obama. Charlie is a distinguished journalist who's been around for years.

Multiple women employed by him have come forward and accused him of groping them, walking around naked, making lewd comments. The story broke in the Washington Post.

I really liked his interviews.

When Rose would give them unsolicited back massages, the women called that the “the crusty paw”.

[StayTuned]

I'm torn. Trial by newspaper is indeed a terrible thing. However, it took a newspaper and proper investigative journalists to blow the Baylor scandal wide open.

So...sometimes its necessary if its being covered up on a very wide scale.

I don't understand why journalists can't work closely with the police, report their findings, push forward the investigation and then when the police has done their job, publish the news.

Naw, they get a story on their desk by some random witness and the next day it's front page. Fuck fact checking.... You can always apologize later for your mistake... Better than being the 2nd one to bring the story.

[Crissi]

I don't understand why journalists can't work closely with the police, report their findings, push forward the investigation and then when the police has done their job, publish the news.

Naw, they get a story on their desk by some random witness and the next day it's front page. Fuck fact checking.... You can always apologize later for your mistake... Better than being the 2nd one to bring the story.

If the cops are in on it, then there's nothing left. However that is generally SUPER rare.

Also, a jounrnalists job is generally to bring stuff to light in public, often to force the issue. Such as bad landlords, or businesses breaking ordinances, or local politicians being bad.

[StayTuned]

If the cops are in on it, then there's nothing left. However that is generally SUPER rare.

Also, a jounrnalists job is generally to bring stuff to light in public, often to force the issue. Such as bad landlords, or businesses breaking ordinances, or local politicians being bad.

But isn't the status quo right now that journalists publish their story way too prematurely and only then the police gets involved? If their news are wrong or straight out fake, the damage has been done.

[Machismo]

I don't understand why journalists can't work closely with the police, report their findings, push forward the investigation and then when the police has done their job, publish the news.

Naw, they get a story on their desk by some random witness and the next day it's front page. Fuck fact checking.... You can always apologize later for your mistake... Better than being the 2nd one to bring the story.

Well, that's not really an option when law enforcement isn't transparent. How do you work closely with an agency that refuses to cooperate or divulge information?

[Crissi]

But isn't the status quo right now that journalists publish their story way too prematurely and only then the police gets involved? If their news are wrong or straight out fake, the damage has been done.

That's generally why libel laws exist, and Rolling Stone got absolutely hammered with how they handled the Virginia fake rape thing (and afaik, Virgina still has their honor intact).

You can prove something is wrong / fake, and journalists absolutely get hammered to hell over it and generally, non nuts people forgive the accused.

[Zelk]

The press in the UK are a bunch of fucking scumbags

[StayTuned]

That's generally why libel laws exist, and Rolling Stone got absolutely hammered with how they handled the Virginia fake rape thing (and afaik, Virgina still has their honor intact).

You can prove something is wrong / fake, and journalists absolutely get hammered to hell over it and generally, non nuts people forgive the accused.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Tabloids usually walk away mostly unharmed after false accusations. Even bigger outlets like WSJ. Just remember the Pewdiepie case... nobody gave a damn later on that he was demolished on false Nazi accusations.

Well, that's not really an option when law enforcement isn't transparent. How do you work closely with an agency that refuses to cooperate or divulge information?

Shouldn't it be a moral obligation to assist law enforcement without expecting information back? You have your story as a "prize" afterwards.

This is idealistic and totally never going to happen, though. So whatever, I guess.

[Machismo]

Sometimes, sometimes not. Tabloids usually walk away mostly unharmed after false accusations. Even bigger outlets like WSJ. Just remember the Pewdiepie case... nobody gave a damn later on that he was demolished on false Nazi accusations.



Shouldn't it be a moral obligation to assist law enforcement without expecting information back? You have your story as a "prize" afterwards.

This is idealistic and totally never going to happen, though. So whatever, I guess.

Shouldn't it me a moral obligation for government to be transparent and trustworthy?

The news should report the facts as they know it. They should investigate, and yes, they should work with law enforcement. If law enforcement is not working with them, then there is no reason to return the favor.

[Underverse]

That's generally why libel laws exist, and Rolling Stone got absolutely hammered with how they handled the Virginia fake rape thing (and afaik, Virgina still has their honor intact).

You can prove something is wrong / fake, and journalists absolutely get hammered to hell over it and generally, non nuts people forgive the accused.

Yeah, but most of the time it's hard to prove something to be falsified. That also goes against the idea of assuming innocence until guilt is demonstrated.

[Crissi]

Sometimes, sometimes not. Tabloids usually walk away mostly unharmed after false accusations. Even bigger outlets like WSJ. Just remember the Pewdiepie case... nobody gave a damn later on that he was demolished on false Nazi accusations.



Shouldn't it be a moral obligation to assist law enforcement without expecting information back? You have your story as a "prize" afterwards.

This is idealistic and totally never going to happen, though. So whatever, I guess.

Id certainly support a harder hammer on tabloids. I think they run a bit too wild, although most of their accusations are generally harmless (as inm just general gossip. The serious shit though...)

What if the journalists uncover that the cops had been helping cover the shit up? Why should journalists cooperate with the cops then?

Obviously if the cops are not that, then they should forward it to the police. If nothing is done still, for whatever reasons, then the journalists are in their right to publish. We've had rape kits here that cops just "forgot" about until journalists publists that fact

[StayTuned]

Shouldn't it me a moral obligation for government to be transparent and trustworthy?

The news should report the facts as they know it. They should investigate, and yes, they should work with law enforcement. If law enforcement is not working with them, then there is no reason to return the favor.

I'm inclined to agree. The fact that government is not transparent and trustworthy is a disaster in itself.

The problem with reporting facts as they know them is the speed in which news has to be delivered. There is almost no time for due diligence.

High class investigative journalism takes a long time from start to finish. Clickbait money is generated fast and is based on headlines. Especially celebs and politicians are easy targets.

[Crissi]

Yeah, but most of the time it's hard to prove something to be falsified. That also goes against the idea of assuming innocence until guilt is demonstrated.

innocence until guilt is a law concept and doesnt really apply to public opinion (even though I myself generally treat public accusations as just that, accusations and not necessarily statements of fact). Im not sure you can control for stupid people acting stupid.

Im just very wary of putting limitations on journalism. They provide enough good work on investigations generally that I dont think regulations would be a good idea.

[StayTuned]

Id certainly support a harder hammer on tabloids. I think they run a bit too wild, although most of their accusations are generally harmless (as inm just general gossip. The serious shit though...)

What if the journalists uncover that the cops had been helping cover the shit up? Why should journalists cooperate with the cops then?

Obviously if the cops are not that, then they should forward it to the police. If nothing is done still, for whatever reasons, then the journalists are in their right to publish. We've had rape kits here that cops just "forgot" about until journalists publists that fact

I don't disagree with anything you just said :P

News reports on a large scale have just gone downhill in terms of journalistic quality. That's my biggest complaint.