Kind regards,
Evan

@Jazzone and peter ralph — Usually people resort to personal insults when they are unable to come up with any more thoughtful or intelligent response.

Call me sanctimonious, but neither of you would win any awards for intellect.

Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski

[1/1/09 UPDATE]

congratulations to Ryan Sholin, Jeff Jarvis et al for jumping on the “more balls” bandwagon

But there should be some way to punish newspapers for false reporting even if no individual is defamed. Fake stories like this should not be allowed to go unpunished.

Why is that? Without Private Eye the Grauniad would be facing multi-million dollar defamation suit.

Could it be that Private Eye blows the gaffe on those dweebs who whine about needing bigger budgets when what they need is bigger balls.

The facts speak for themselves.

Thank you for the reply. The problem I have with the Guardian is that they play an important role in the mainstreaming of what I consider to be extreme anti-Israel sentiment. And without living in the UK it may not be possible to realize how mainstream that sentiment is here. The extremism of the views perpetuated in the Guardian and in the left-wing community they appeal to leaves little room for dialogue and therefore only serves to fan the flames of further conflict. It influences politics here which translates directly into a more difficult environment for Israel (although the policies of the two major parties are typically not as extreme as the media).

The Guardian’s “Comment is Free” website has been a notorious venue for anti-Semitic diatribe posted by visitors (and I do appreciate the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and outright anti-Semitism). The Guardian has done a poor job in the past of moderating and filtering such comments.

For these reasons I personally would have a hard time working with the Guardian; I would feel I was aiding and abetting these kinds of harmful activities. However I realize I’m in the minority here, as you are among several people I know and respect who do work with the Guardian.

This is also why I feel the Guardian’s US edition is not likely to gain much traction — if the politics are similar I doubt there is a very large audience for it in the US.

Kind regards,
Evan

http://libn.com/blog/2008/12/30/dc-lobbyist-sues-times-over-mccain-affair-story/

While the “underdog newspaper vs a big bad corporation” may make a good story, there’s also the case where a newspaper slimes some poor individual.

I am interested in another aspect of your relationship with the Guardian.

During the 2006 Lebanon war you wrote a number of blog posts that strongly defended Israel. I happened to agree with you.

The Guardian, however, was and is on the opposite side of the fence. It is arguably the leading publication for the extreme left-wing intelligentsia here in Britain who typically condemn Israel and reflexively support Palestinian causes. The Guardian’s recent editorials about the Gaza situation continue in this vein. News coverage also actively reflects this bias.

Given the past positions you’ve taken, how have you reconciled yourself to the Guardian’s positions on this issue? I recognize that the Guardian prints a diversity of views, but the pro-Israel views are in the minority.

Unlike U.S. newspapers which tend (or at least purport) to take an editorially neutral position in their news coverage, British newspapers openly adopt a position on the political spectrum and readily reflect it in the tone of their coverage. Therefore if you associate yourself with a particular newspaper in Britain, you are associating yourself with their positions.

Presuming you do not agree with many of the Guardian’s positions on such Issues, how do you reconcile this to your satisfaction?

Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski

What is a great deal more amusing though is that what Tesco really was doing was organising to avoid (not evade!) Stamp Duty, not Corporation Tax. And, umm, the Guardian Media Group had exactly the same structure set up to avoid (not evade!) Stamp Duty on their transaction with EMAP.

So the reporters could have got the skinny on it just by asking the internal accountants. Odd that Rusbridger didn’t mention that really….

This is not only true of reporting on large companies, just look at the News of the World battle with Tommy Sheridan; they thought they had a cast iron case with plenty of witnesses and were still found guilty of defaming Sheridan and fined £200, 000.

Combine this with the rise of Conditional Fee Arrangements and it is not too far fetched to imagine newspapers choosing to leave out a scoop altogether to avoid potential claims against them.

It’s up to the goverment to figure out a way of stopping these legal frameworks from being exploited as a means of making money and shutting up the press.

Obviously the 1st Amendment should be protected at all costs. However, adults are responsible for the mistakes they make. Don’t report on “complex matters” if you don’t have the chops.