Serious implications indeed, devalued only by there being "falsehood" at the heart of the piece. If the case were won solely on disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, spiteful or not, then I would have been more concerned. Thoughts?
This is like an inverse Daily Mail story generator, Gannon... something you're clearly very aware of. I imagine you're very nearly furious... Man jailed for flying Union Jack ..at the bottom of which yarn we are told the man flew the flag then used it to strangle another to death.
I agree. The title implies that someone just sued for libel over a shitty review that hurt her feelings, in which case, I'd have absolutely zero respect for the plaintiff. But falsehoods and disregard for the truth make the case different. I'm a journalist, and fact errors are a huge deal when they're just a small typo or getting a date wrong: a gregarious set of mistakes like the ones laid out above should've gotten the reviewer fired.
Without knowing the exact details of the critique or the lawsuit, I don't think we have any basis for condemning either the defendant or the plaintiff in this case, or the magnitude of the award.
I have watched in horror the down fall of journalistics over the last 20 some odd years. When I was in school we were taught that a journalist should never ever insert their own feelings or opinions into a piece. Now with reviews that is hard to do but... over all this new era of Yellow Journalism is just sickening. And don't get me started on how I feel about tabloids! Under handed information gathering techniques etc... we would be here all week. >_>
I thought tabloids put a situation in one hat, a famous place in one and a famous name in another and made a story out of a pull of each one. James Patterson mysteriously catches on fire in Los Angeles Hm... Anyway, seeing false claims always makes me sad, since it damages the integrity of the individual far more than monetary repayments will.
^ Lol Faust! Yeah true once something is out there people will always recall it even if it was not true.
