"Science, after all, is about evaluating evidence. Science journalism, sometimes, requires pointing out when evidence is weak or absent. This is especially important in the context of medicine and health, where misinformation or lack of information can be deadly."
What exactly is the problem then? If misinformation can be so deadly then surely one should have a sober mind and do all his work, also think twice about maybe three times about misinforming the public or "bending" the fact due to conflicting interests.
Surely if what Mr. Sigh said is true, then there is no case to defend at all as I would presume that those who are bringing proceedings are not so stupid as to embark on such a journey when it is certain that what is said is the truth. Perhaps Mr. Sigh exaggerated a bit, perhaps to such extent that he defamed them and speaking outright lies so as to defend his own profession. I suppose he would not feel good if I were a respected and an individual of influence and said that medicine is rubbish, just drink some water with sugar as the placebo effect will take care.
I would suggest that this has nothing to do with Mr Sigh, or science, truth, justice, or right and wrong. Instead the journalists hate the fact that they can not exaggerate stories to such extent as to tell lies in order to sell their papers. Science journalists are the worst, claiming contradictory findings every day and exaggerating all findings out of proportion.
The truth of the matter is that libel laws are there to protect the public. Lying is not a crime, but it does have strong moral condemnation. Defaming on the other hand is a lie of extraordinary proportion which cause so much damage to the defamed organisation or individual but also society as a whole. Tell the truth and you have nothing to worry. Lie and you do so at your own peril.
We can not have the forth arm of governing be unaccountable. Libel laws are there to keep journalists in check. If they became more lenient no one would benefit, not even the newspapers as no one would trust them any longer.
What exactly is the problem then? If misinformation can be so deadly then surely one should have a sober mind and do all his work, also think twice about maybe three times about misinforming the public or "bending" the fact due to conflicting interests.
Surely if what Mr. Sigh said is true, then there is no case to defend at all as I would presume that those who are bringing proceedings are not so stupid as to embark on such a journey when it is certain that what is said is the truth. Perhaps Mr. Sigh exaggerated a bit, perhaps to such extent that he defamed them and speaking outright lies so as to defend his own profession. I suppose he would not feel good if I were a respected and an individual of influence and said that medicine is rubbish, just drink some water with sugar as the placebo effect will take care.
I would suggest that this has nothing to do with Mr Sigh, or science, truth, justice, or right and wrong. Instead the journalists hate the fact that they can not exaggerate stories to such extent as to tell lies in order to sell their papers. Science journalists are the worst, claiming contradictory findings every day and exaggerating all findings out of proportion.
The truth of the matter is that libel laws are there to protect the public. Lying is not a crime, but it does have strong moral condemnation. Defaming on the other hand is a lie of extraordinary proportion which cause so much damage to the defamed organisation or individual but also society as a whole. Tell the truth and you have nothing to worry. Lie and you do so at your own peril.
We can not have the forth arm of governing be unaccountable. Libel laws are there to keep journalists in check. If they became more lenient no one would benefit, not even the newspapers as no one would trust them any longer.