LIBEL Mail faces $150m Trump suit

Read Guardian article here.

Another major example of the difficulty facing any NATIONAL regulator, and the limitations of any media regulator when the rich can always use law courts.

A suit has been filed in Maryland claiming an extraordinary $150m damages after a Mail article is claimed to have defamed Donald Trump's wife Melania.

Unlike the Gawker case this is not enough to bankrupt the Mail - but if they lose it surely will have a huge impact on the press in the UK and beyond.

Trump is using the same lawyer that successfully claimed huge damages in the Hulk Hogan case, seeing Gawker go bust.

This is something of a reverse from recent years when the UK was widely used for libel tourism as accusers were more likely to win than in their home country and also to gain much harsher punishments and publishing restrictions.

Trump has launched 100s of libel suits and legal cases - never forget that the sheer cost of defending these is a serious issue for many media outlets, who will be more reluctant to fulfil their democratic reporting function when it comes to Trump as a result.

IPSO, just like the PCC, has nothing to say on this - shouldn't it (with OfCom?) be a factor here?

See: Melania Trump sues Daily Mail for $150m over 'lies' about her past.

Gawker libel suit Its the end of the word as we know it

American wrestling in the shape of Hulk Hogan may seem an odd topic for an aspiring academic to get into (although hopefully doing a Media course and any half-decent degree will teach you that there is much to learn from the seemingly trivial), but here is what will become a classic example of abuse of libel laws.

The UK was used for libel tourism, the rich and powerful taking advantage of libel laws that were much too easy to use to silence the media (and/or to claim huge damages), with super injunctions (e.g. Guardian and Trafigura, and the Ryan Giggs cases) another much-abused libel tool showing how significant the wider law is.

You can't grasp media regulation by studying the formal regulators alone.

Here we have a case in which a vengeful venture capitalist funded a lawsuit by the wrestler which has caused Gawker (which once upset this VC) to go bust and be sold off. The case was lodged in Florida - where state law means that it doesn't matter if you appeal, you legally must pay up whatever damages the initial judge sets immediately, a variation on the once rampant UK libel tourism.

Read more here.

On a lighter note (though you could decipher the semiotics of the Aryan figure...),

"Whatcha gonna do, brother? Whatcha gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you?"

ADVERTISER POWER Gawker editors quit as ad boycott threat sees article banned

Useful example of one of Chomsky's 'five filters' at work as it shows this is as true of new media as it is of dinosaur media (60s Times, NoTW closure, Telegraph HSBC non-reporting)

Just as with the case of the Daily Telegraph's Peter Oborne quitting in protest at articles critical of HSBC bank being pulled to protect advertising revenue, so we have another case which shows how the fabled free press is actually heavily influenced by advertisers and commercial considerations (so Murdoch pulled the BBC off his Asian satellite TV network Star and pulped the hardcover [expensive!] copies of Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten's autobiography when China complained, safeguarding his access to the huge Chinese market, and ensuring Tiananmen Square would get no mention, and critics of Chinese Communist rule were silenced).

Perhaps this case isn't as clear though - there are ethical considerations (though, as with the UK press using the public interest defence this may be simply convenient to mask the real commercial calculation?):

Gawker Media’s top two editors resigned from the news and gossip site on Monday, in response to the company’s decision to remove a controversial post. The post, published last Thursday, concerned a publishing executive who is married to a woman and who allegedly attempted to book a gay escort. 

The post was described by some critics as a form of blackmail and widely condemned in the media. At least one advertiser put ads on hold in protest....Gawker’s founder Nick Denton defended his decision to take down the post on Monday and said that the managing partnership should not make editorial decisions. He took full responsibility for the removal of the post.  

“Let me be clear. This was a decision I made as founder and publisher – and guardian of the company mission – and the majority supported me in that decision,” he said. “This is the company I built. I was ashamed to have my name and Gawker’s associated with a story on the private life of a closeted gay man who some felt had done nothing to warrant the attention.”

Gawker's top editors quit in protest over removal of a controversial post.