Tuesday, April 29, 2003
More on the George Galloway thing, from The Independent.
On the subject of 'how would the Telegraph expect to get away with this if they're printing something which is almost certainly untrue?' there's this paragraph from the article;
The Daily Telegraph will have to support all its claims against Mr Galloway. If it can't, the paper will still be able to fall back on the defence of qualified privilege, providing it can show that there was a strong public interest in publishing a story that was based on what appeared to be genuine documents.
Who defines 'strong public interest'? Not... friends of Tony surely?
On the subject of 'how would the Telegraph expect to get away with this if they're printing something which is almost certainly untrue?' there's this paragraph from the article;
The Daily Telegraph will have to support all its claims against Mr Galloway. If it can't, the paper will still be able to fall back on the defence of qualified privilege, providing it can show that there was a strong public interest in publishing a story that was based on what appeared to be genuine documents.
Who defines 'strong public interest'? Not... friends of Tony surely?
