Solveig Mikkelsen a écrit :
> Jeg fikk lyst til å vite mer om dette fordi det høres så snålt ut: Et
> kommunistparti som er liberalister, og som agiterer mot miljøbevegelsen? Kan
> du utdype hva du mener og hvor du har denne informasjonen fra? Jeg betviler
> ikke det du sier (siden jeg sjøl ikke har noe kjennskap til verken partiet
> eller magasinet), men vil gjerne ha mer kjøtt på beinet.
Eg fann vevsida til LM Magazine: http://www.informinc.co.uk/
Søkjer ein på "LM" på vevsida til ITN, finn ein fleire artiklar om
rettsaka:
http://www.itn.co.uk/
Her er den siste artikkelen deira, frå i går:
"ITN strikes blow for freedom of speech ITN won its libel action against
LM magazine, formerly Living Marxism - the old house journal of the
Revolutionary Communist Party, writes ITN Editor-in-Chief Richard Tait.
We were defending the integrity of ITN and two of its reporters, Penny
Marshall and Ian Williams, whom LM had defamed. We were defending the
truth about the Bosnian Serb detention camps. And I believe that by
taking action against LM's lies, ITN has also struck an important blow
for freedom of speech in Britain.
If ITN had not stood by its reporters and defended them in the courts
they would have been ruined, professionally and personally.
LM had accused them of deliberately misleading viewers in their brave
and honest reports of the terrible conditions they saw at the Omarska
and Trnopolje camps in Bosnia in August, 1992.
I think attempts to ruin the reputations of honest journalists is a far
greater threat to freedom of speech than the use of the law to protect
the reputations and careers of those who have been libelled.
The jury clearly agreed that serious harm had been done and unanimously
awarded Ian and Penny the maximum amount of damages - £150,000 each.
When LM launched their campaign against us in January, 1997, with a
press release - it was without any attempt to contact anyone at ITN to
check the story. The phones were ringing for reaction before we had even
seen a copy of their article.
I realised the moment I read their release that the story was a wicked
lie.
A little research into LM and the author of the article satisfied me
that no journalist who did the minimum of checking would think their
allegations credible.
Those who did check the facts dropped the story. But others did not. It
was clear to me that the allegation that some of the most important
television news coverage of the decade had been fabricated was too
delicious a prospect to let the facts get in the way of what they saw as
a good story.
ITN faced a dilemma. We were asked if we were going to sue LM. We were
initially reluctant to do so. But the reaction of some reporters was `if
you don't sue there must be something in the story.' The moment we did
sue, the press line became `why are you bullying a little magazine?'
They were encouraged by LM who launched a ludicrous 'Free Speech
Appeal,' claiming to act in defence of freedom of expression. It was
mainly supported by academics and writers. Few of them ever bothered to
contact ITN for our side of the story.
So LM went into court with their good wishes. But they had another ally
- a balding man in uniform with a gun and a camcorder. He was a Bosnian
Serb militia man who followed Penny and Ian around the camps as they
filmed.
His job was to intimidate the prisoners and to record what they told the
ITN team. The prisoners were warned they would be killed afterwards if
they spoke the truth about conditions. Survivors say some of them were.
The militia man was not in court, but LM had somehow got hold of his
pictures and used them in their defence.
Do those who so uncritically backed LM really feel comfortable lining up
on the same side as the people who persecuted the helpless inmates of
the Bosnian camps? What freedom of expression did those inmates enjoy,
when they could be killed for the wrong word whispered to a British
reporter?
We live in an age where some media 'experts' appear to take as fact
allegations which suit their prejudices about television news; where
columnists and pundits outnumber the hard news reporters on the front
line of journalism.
This case is a timely reminder that reporting what has happened as
fairly and fearlessly as possible remains an essential foundation of a
free society.
If journalism is the first draft of history, only that commitment to
first hand reporting will ensure that the truth is saved from the
dishonesty of the partisan and the ideologue. The jury knew that freedom
of expression was at stake in our battle with LM - that is why they
found unanimously and overwhelmingly in favour of Penny Marshall, Ian
Williams and ITN."
Oddmund Garvik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 18 2000 - 16:04:50 MET