大象传媒

大象传媒.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Paul Mason's Idle Scrawl

Prezza, the bloggers and Paxman

  • Paul Mason
  • 6 Jul 06, 11:41 AM

prescott_pa203300.jpgNot since 7/7 has the UK blogosphere looked like functioning in the same way as its US counterpart - until now. Slipping and sliding around the libel laws, and the custom and practice of us media types refraining from telling the world who is sleeping with whom at Westminster, the British bloggers are at it, right now, on an almost hourly basis, pushing the Prescott story forward almost faster than the Mainstream Media (MSM).

The fact is that, though the anonymous people alleged to have been involved with Prezza may be in the process of suing various newspapers, the names are out there in the blogosphere; and the bloggers are dissecting Prescott's latest interview with a - they claim - even finer toothcomb than we, the objective impartial Beeb. Actually the 大象传媒 points out:

Asked repeatedly whether he had had any other affairs, Mr Prescott refused to answer directly.

The Prescott issue is an ideal topic for a blog feeding frenzy because it is in the objective interest of the Tory bloggers and the anti-Blair Labour bloggers for Prescott to go. It was when this happened in the USA that blogging started to have a real impact on events.

Newsnight last night acknowledged the fact that bloggers are now a factor in events by putting Toryboy Iain Dale live and unleashed (well, pre-recorded and heavily legalled) on the UK's flagship political programme. Watch it here.

If you want to dip into this world of ranching and raunching...click on any of these links and you will soon get as far as we poor professional journalists have got: to a bunch of infidelity allegations that have not been substantiated but are, as of Today's 8.10 interview with Prezza, the subject of a non-denial; and to the documents at the centre of an argument over whether his decision to go and study the intricacies of farming courtesy of Phil Anschutz amount to a conflict of interest...

, Ian Dale's , Labour Councillor Bob Piper's , The Void , ...

Now call me old fashioned, but either the libel laws apply to these blogs the same as they do to Newsnight, or they don't. (Mr Justice Cocklecarrot: "What is a blog?" - Brief: "My lord I believe it is a website upon which an individual or individuals may express unsubstantiated allegations in cyberspace") As Guido points out, there have been no writs issued against him. Meanwhile Prezza's trip to the prairie is now the subject of an official parliamentary investigation.

Oh and there is some humour going on amid the crotchetyness: .

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 12:55 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • June Collins wrote:

" ... anonymous people alleged to have been involved with Prezza may be in the process of suing ... "


MAY BE IN THE PROCESS?

You know they are not. Nobody is suing and it is obvious why.

He didn't 'decide to go' and do anything, he was offered hospitality and accepted. Did it not occur to him to ask why Mr Anschutz should make such an offer when anyone with half a brain can see that it was because he has an agenda which Prescott was in a position to advance? Either he has more than half a brain (unlikely), in which case he is corrupt; or he does not, in which case he confirms both his arrogance, stupidity and unfitness to hold office. The inconsistent waffling about Wilberforce, cattle ranching/farming, donation to charity, belated interests register entry etc only compounds the mans total blustering incompetence. And all that quite apart from his developing reputation as a serial groper and adulterer.

But who do you sue?

If the comment was made in a newspaper or on TV you would sue the newspaper or the TV station, not the journo.

The reasons for this are usually financial, because the company will have insurance or a big bank balance, but also as a warning to that company to not do it again.

On the Internet who are you going to Sue? For bloggers using blogger.com (Guido and Iain) that is Google. If you want to sue Google your going to have to go to the US.

From what I can gather in the US ISPs/Service providers are protected under
the Communications Decency Act which grants immunity from suit to those who provide material on the Internet that was written by others.

So you go after the blogger, which is hugely problematic. You would have to get that users I.P. address, if an anon, from the US based host. You would have to prove your case to them to get that information, then again to the ISP to get that users name and address.

Then you have the problem of the "No I'm spartacus" effect where "bloggers unite" and the problematic material is copied around the world in a matter of minutes, making the problem worse.

I am watching with interest for the first test case to hit the UK, being a US hosted UK provider of news/message boards.

  • 4.
  • At 02:07 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • June Gibson wrote:

Perhaps we should be grateful that Prescott is not doing anything else. His actions would cost the nation much more than the dole money we are paying him.
A letter from a Prescott childhood acqaintance which I recently saw in a newspaper revealed that he wasn't from working class stock at all. Does that explain why he can't do a proper job?

John:

Libel is actionable in UK regardless of whether a site is based in the US and such litigation can be, in English Law, against the author, publisher or both - which is reason why our libel law is extremely pernicious by comparison of the other countries.

In the case of many, if not most bloggers, a litigant's best expectations would be the removal of the offending piece and an apology/retraction - the chance of any appareciable award for damages is pretty slim, especially if the blogger has no significant property, like a house, to finance a settlement.

Where the US complicates matters - often in the blogger's favour - is in relation to things like the government's takedown notices in the 2006 Terrorism Act.

These would almost certainly be unenforceable in the US as the first amendment applies to all websites hosted in the US, irrespective of the actual location of the author - this is one reason why many of the UK's independently-hosted bloggers use US-based hosting services.

With regard to the question about the other affairs, all Prescott had to do was either deny it outright, admit it or say that is none of anybody else's business. For him to waffle and obfuscate as he did, is fooling nobody.

If he can't give a straight answer to a simple question like that, then why should we trust what he says about his influence over the casino bid. For him to take credit for the jobs on one hand and then say "nothing to do with me, guv" on the other is a nonsense.

Cheers for the mention, Paul; you must be the only person that has linked to me in a year without putting a "strong language" caution on it...!

DK

BTW, Paul - as the Beeb don't appear to do trackbacks, you'll find my full response to your post here...

Lots of bloggers are hitting the keyboards, but if the big pillock reacts in the manner which has become all too familiar to watchers of NuLabour, he'll be the same as Tom Swift, as in 'with one bound he was free!'

This bunch of crawlers don't even know how to spell 'honour' never mind follow the correct path, which of course is firstly an apology, followed by a resignation!

  • 10.
  • At 06:50 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • Alex Swanson wrote:

"His defence - and, for now, it seems to be a pretty solid one - is that all times he got his permanent secretary's approval"

This is 大象传媒 humour, right?

  • 11.
  • At 07:19 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • wrote:

Maybe the bloggers take greater risks with the libel laws than journalists working for the established media, but we also depend on our own reputations for our readership. Iain Dale, Guido Fawkes et al cannot afford to loose their web reputations in quite the same way the 大象传媒 or a newspaper can pay an out of court settlement.

The bloggers picked up on a Times report about Prescott and Phillip Anschutz and ran with it, developing the story on the run. In this instance the outcome has been massive media attention on a possibly shady relationship between a minister with a certain amount of clout in planning matters and a businessman who seeks to build a controversial casino and entertainment complex.

That the DPM's defence appears to change from one barely credible line to another on an almost hourly basis merely adds credence to the bloggers', and now the media's, suspicions.

  • 12.
  • At 09:16 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • PubDrunk wrote:

Pretty poor Paul.

I would suggest that if YOU actually really want to dip into "this world of ranching and raunching", as you call it, then you should actually go and read the article that DK was referring to in his post.

There you might find more than "a bunch of infidelity allegations that have not been substantiated", rather a well reasoned, well researched and substantive article of note.

However, it's probably too much to expect you "professional journalists" to actually go and read the article that Devil's Kitchen was actually talking about.

Sheesh! And Nick Robinson had the nerve to complain that bloggers don't do the due dilligence that the professionals have to...

  • 13.
  • At 10:31 PM on 06 Jul 2006,
  • wrote:

Tory Boy. Age 43. Hmmm. Never been called that before!

  • 14.
  • At 12:09 AM on 07 Jul 2006,
  • wrote:

"... but we also depend on our own reputations for our readership."

Precisely. We, unlike professional journalists, have integrity; for what have we to gain other than trust? Personally, I trust journalists only a smidgeon more than I do politicians: after all, if the piper calls your tune, you must follow him.

i.e. you are shallow and venal and your integrity is shot to pieces. Not entirely the Beeb's fault; I realy blame Tessa "didn't we have a mortgage, darling. Oh, Paul, about this Charter..." Jowell.

DK

  • 15.
  • At 12:13 AM on 07 Jul 2006,
  • wrote:

Iain? You have, just not somewhere you'd notice.

I've said it on my site ever since the "other mistress" stories broke in the run up to the May elections, and I say it again. I really don't care who PRescott is sleeping with, nor who he has slept with. There's a slight bother that they seem to get promoted soon afterwards, but, well, I care not.

What I care is that he's useless, and Unity's analysis appears to be spot on. To think he wasn't sure about posting it.

This post is closed to new comments.

The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites