Should bad news be buried in the national interest?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If he said it and it's not true then yes, he should go.

If he didn't say it then why has he gone?

If it's true, regardless of whether he said it or not, the FIFA should investigate it.

If england loses the world cup because of this story then Treisman and the Mail on Sunday should be made to pay.

Someone in his position should really have been more careful about what he was saying and to whom!I don't think there is a reason to supress bad press, even if it's in the so-called 'national interest' - who decides what is in the 'national interest' anyway? I personally don't consider England's 2018 bid to host the World Cup that interesting - hardly a matter of enormous importance or impacting on national security!

Was the story legitimate journalism or entrapment?

Lets look at the information provided by the Mail on Sunday.

We know he was at a social event, where presumably alcohol was available.

We know he was approached by an attractive woman who he regarded as a friend.

We only have a clip of their conversation, we do not know who instigated that conversation, we do not know in what context Lord Treisman made those comments, we do not know if his companion 'led' him into theat conversation or whether he made those comments freely.

We do not know if he would ever have made such comments in a different environment to a different person.

The conclusion.

Lord Treisman was foolish, and may well have been running off at the mouth to impress his attractive friend - for those comments then to published as if they were his opinion is misleading to the public read that paper.

It wasn't shoddy journalism, it was a honey trap (it would be illegal for the police to obtain information in this way) it was barely journalism at all and it may coast the UK economy billions.

It's one thing for the police to mount "sting" operations to catch murderers, drug dealers, paedophiles and so on, but newspapers? The damage they have caused at both personal and national levels calls into question the judgement of the editors.

Everyone makes remarks in private which they would not wish publicised. Someone needs to stand up to the papers and their tactics.

The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job.

"Is Britain's World Cup bid salvageable?"

Britain's World Cup bid? That's insulting to Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and English people. It is, or rather was England's bid.

I suppose it has to be published - free press and all that. But it's done a lot of damage to English football and as a result England will probably miss out on a nice little earner just when we could really do with one.

What really baffles me though is how "Lord" Treisman, a man who has reversed polarity in terms of personal values from Communist to happy member of the House of Lords... How does a man that unprincipled get to do this kind of important job anyway?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No, the Mail was *not* right to publish - unless the idea was to ensure that Britain's bid would fail. Yes, it *was* entrapment (though a public figure such as Lord Triesman needs to be very careful what he says). The bid *may* be salvageable - unlike our reputation as jingoists with a superiority complex. # Fail.

Has anyone investigated what he alleged is true? If it is then I see no reason for him being truthful.

Why do British trashy newspapers like to hinder national sporting interests at any chance they get. If the mail had any patriotism in them they would of investigated his climes instead of report them. Nice one Mail, you probably just cost us the 2018 world cup, the British government should seek damages equal to the expected income the World cup would of brought us.

We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it.

"Was the Mail on Sunday right to publish the allegations?"

'Definition: An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.'

Forget the stepping down quietly without fuss, this NEEDS to be pursued to see whether it has any basis in truth.

The press in particular think in the 'enlightened' world we live in they can push these allegations out as stories, knowing they can hide behind 'freedom of the press' defence without holding any of the responsibility that freedom holds.

The Mail decided to print this in FULL knowledge they had no evidence to support or contradict this view. I don't particularly like Football and its multimillionaire lifestyled pampered starts, but further down the chain a lot of people would have benefited from this.

In a just world the Mail would now commit its resources into the accuracy of the claims, but I doubt they give two hoots now. They have their headline.

It depends on the situation. In a case like this, I think the story should have been buried. No one in England wants the bid to fail, and I imagine most people in other parts of the UK would be glad to see it so close to them too. Nothing has been gained by the publication of this story (except maybe some newspaper sales). No conspiracy or great injustice has been uncovered. The fact that there is a legal right to report on such things is irrelevant.

I think our media, especially papers like the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail) need to be reminded of their ethical responsibilities too. Stories don't come before everything.

What on earth were the Mail on Sunday thinking. This is not a case of bad news being buried, this appears to me to be almost a deliberate attempt to sabotage the 2018 bid.

Our national newspapers are an absolute embarrassment. They make me ashamed to be British. They encourage the worst sort of behaviour in people, actively supporting the lowest forms of betrayal with their chequebooks, and taking pleasure in providing their readers with salacious, damaging gossip of the very worst kind. It isn't even harmless - it has warped our national character. They make celebrities of the drunk, drugged, promiscuous, ill-informed and vacuous, and the constant drip-drip of nasty rubbish has dragged down a generation of people who have no respect for anything or anyone. They ruin the concept of a free Press by constantly abusing their privileges and then whining that they have done nothing wrong when confronted. Tony Blair called them 'feral' and for once he was right.

No, bad news should not be buried. But this is a deliberately disingenuous question, posed by a media organisation who glory in poking at society's sores every bit as much as the newspapers do.

This story is not about whether or not to publish bad news, which of course they should.

The question is about whether the media is publishing actual news or passing off someone's non-serious social comments as fact and their opinions. We do not know the context of this situation, the media just published a small snippet of the conversation, to be able to draw really conclusions they should release the whole tape so we can see the lead up to the comments

Should bad news be buried in the national interest? -Depends, do you want third world censorship leading to TOTALLY untrustworthy press or a free press which will report the FACTS.

Personally I prefer the latter

However if the question was do I trust our press to honestly report the facts, not to facricate or mis-represent stories then answer would generally be - NO!

Do I think the press should be involved in entrapment? - a little more difficult. In general an entrapment cannot take place if the subject is honest and playing by the rules but I am aware in some cases in the past where there has been selective reporting of the actions taken which gave people the wrong idea of what had taken place. If newspapers, editors and reporters all faced significant punishment for malicious false reporting (not honest mistakes) then I would have more trust in what was printed.

Simply newspapers must not be stopped from reporting the truth even if it is damaging to short term national interests as it will cause even greater long term damage to national interests.

World Cup bid is now dead! the UK media has shown what it will be doing for the world cup atmosphere and i would not disagree if they did not chose London! The media portrays our country and they have told the world we are happy to lie about others in order to make ourselves look better! just like everything else, when a reporter ses an asian guy in a merc he is a drug dealer and the public also believe that! or see a motehr pushign a pram, she is portrayed as being on benefits even if she isnt! and when the government make some lies to get us to war with Islam, the media portrays Islam in a way to stir up racial tension! and all because the UK public are like sheep and wont learn independently they have to read BNP leaflets and the Sun newspaper and think they have been enlightened! pathetically backward!

Er...? I thought all the news was bad. Isn't that the urban legend? Media equals Bad News?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Until I opened the article and discovered it was a flap over the 2018 World Cup, the article heading "Should bad news be buried in the national interest" made no sense at all and leads one to think it is a suggestion that we should all pretend "bad things" don't exist and we should all imagine butterflies and children skipping though the daisies while the world degenerates into a nuclear fireball. Might I suggest an article heading something like "Should bad news about the 2018 World Cup be buried in the national interest" be more appropoe? At least then we are all directed to the correct subject line.

6. At 1:22pm on 17 May 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:
The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job.
----------------------------
Hear hear!

12. At 1:43pm on 17 May 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:
We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it.
----------------------
Hear hear!

If he did indeed say that then the press had every right to publish those comments and he should most definitely go.

However IMV it's all too easy for the press to publish ill informed or badly researched material as fact which in turn risks ruining innocent people. Freedom of the press has its advantages but give them too much freedom and it becomes detrimental to the public interest.

There need to be safeguards!

Perhaps the clue is in the name NEWSpaper?

Stick to REPORTING the news, rather than manufacturing gossip. What sort of sleazy individual goes to a party with a tape recorder and collects the drunken burblings of her fellow guests, anyway? Please publish her name so that we all know not to invite her to anything (or at least stripsearch her before letting her in).

Or is this all a smokescreen to hide the fact that the rumour is true and World Cup referees really DO take backhanders? (With profound apologies to all the honest refs.)

"The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job."

Is it? When are they planning to start doing that then?

11. At 1:42pm on 17 May 2010, Andy wrote:
Why do British trashy newspapers like to hinder national sporting interests at any chance they get. If the mail had any patriotism in them they would of investigated his climes instead of report them. Nice one Mail, you probably just cost us the 2018 world cup

---

You have to put yourself in the mindset of the average Daily Mail reader.

Everybody in the world is having a better life than you, even though they don't deserve it, Britain is a stinking corrupt sewer ruled by immigrants and ferral yooves.

Any event designed to give the nation a good time and enhance our national image such as the world cup or olympics is automatically a huge waste of taxpayers money.

In particular you feel footballers wages are 'digusting'. Presumably you think that the wages would otherwise be going to charity.

Thats the Daily Mail's market & thats why they and others are running with this story and will, furthermore have been saving up any 'scandals' involving England team members, specifically so they can publish them during the world cup.

Its all about sales, and if the country is worse off as a whole then thats not really their problem

The Football Association (FA) has had some very uncomfortable revelations/'scandals' over the years as regards to some of it's ... main members?

As footballers are increasingly trying to set a 'good example', (some better than others) to young people who love the game, it's very embarrassing for our country that the FA seem unable to clean up it's 'culture'?

This is the Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday:
Daily Mail and General Trust plc was fully incorporated in 1922 and its shares were first listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1932. In 1922 Lord Rothermere acquired control of the Daily Mail newspaper and to this date, Rothermere's descendants continue to control the Daily Mail and General Trust. Rothermere and the Mail were editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists and he wrote an article, "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain. Secret British government papers released in 2005 show that Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and encouraged him to march into Romania. Rothermere also purchased estates in Hungary in case Britain should fall to a Soviet invasion. There is a memorial to Rothermere in Budapest. To this date Rothermere's descendants continue to control the Daily Mail and General Trust.

Think there may be a political adgenda now??

I don't think anyone, even if they are a public figure, should loose their job or be disciplined in any way for giving their opinion to someone in a private conversation.

Furthermore, unless someone is participating in an illegal activity, I think it should be illegal for a journalist to impersonate someone in order to tees out a private opinion with the express purpose of publishing their 'victims' views.

We all have our opinions, some more controversial than others, and it is every single person's right to hold such views as long as we don't act illegally, and it most certainly is NOT the media's job to act as the moral authority on what people should and shouldn't hold views on. In this case The Mail have acted as judge, dury and executioner knowing full well that Lord Treisman's position would be untenable when this came out.

I find the way the gutter press act at times as deplorable as that of any dodgy MP.

6. At 1:22pm on 17 May 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:
"The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job."

It would be great if I thought the media did publish the truth all the time...but I don't think anyone is niave enough to believe they do. Quite often they act no better than I dodgy MP. Also, I do not believe it is right to publish someone's private views they made in a private conversation, unless it implicates them directly in illegal activities.

3. At 1:15pm on 17 May 2010, Caz wrote:
"Someone in his position should really have been more careful about what he was saying and to whom!"

I suggest that you trust noone then and don't give any contenious private views to anyone, as that is the only way you're never going to be caught out.

News like this about football can hardly be called bad news to be suppressed in the national interest. Get real - it's only a sport ! Or has it only become national interest since it involves someone from the English FA - stop dragging Scotland into England's folly ! Personally I couldn't care if football was scrapped tomorrow - I don't watch it !

@11, Andy, how can the Government or the FA claim compensation for loss of earnings when at time of writing they've not lost anything.

Moreover, suppose England does lose its bid, how would the FA even go about proving that the story was the cause of them losing the bid?

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Then again, perhaps you're an ambulance-chasing lawyer or someone dependent on the State -- two different groups both interested in the bottom line and for whom it is always someone else's fault when things 'go wrong'.

Why is this story automatically dubbed "bad news"? Surely anything that reduces the risk of us having to endure the misery of the 2018 foopball World Cup in our own country has got to be a good thing. Pity they couldn't have reported all the back-handers and shady deals that led to us frittering away at least £9Bn on the 2012 Olympics. That's George Osborn's £6Bn sorted in one go, plus the £3Bn they need to sort out the tax burden on people earning less than £10,000 pa. . .

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Football is not an overriding national interest, and the Mail was right to publish its story. The FA being a bunch of idiots has never been a state secret. The media regularly underreports or ignores football hooliganism as they've no wish to hurt a game that sells papers and wins viewers, but refusing to print the Triesman story would have been taking this tendency a ridiculous step too far.

Loose lips sink ships

Our World Cup bid may not yet have sunk without trace - but when the Captain steers it onto the rocks he must expect the Court of Inquiry to take issue with his stewardship.

He would done better to have followed the maxim "If you have nothing good to say, SAY NOTHING".

To be honest, I don't care about what was said. What I do care about is why England has bid for the World Cup. It can't really afford to pay for the Olympics, is heavily in debt and, if recent similar public expenditure is anything to go by, will make a loss. Of course, some businesses may make money, but little, if any, of this will trickle down to low-paid taxpayers who are going to foot the bill. We should at least wait and see what happens with the Olympics before we bid for the World Cup.

For the sake of a scoop and a screaming banner headline the only damage that has been done is to Football, in particular with regard to the world cup bid.
The guy has resigned he should feel quite aggreived that a private conversation has been spun into a money making headline.
If there is any truth to this it should be investigated, however it may just be the case that this is something he suspected but could not be proven in which case it should not have been printed (god knows how many theoretical scandals we would have if everyone's private conversations were printed).
Journalists are just scum diggers with no regard to privacy or resulting damage they do. If they get a lead like this then by all means investigate it but keep the source anonymous unless Proper evidence allows prosecution.

No,the Mail should not have published the story.I can see nothing in the story what I would call "Public interest"It should have been sent directly to the F.A.and let them deal with it internally.Yes he should go.People in his position should know better.As for the woman who set him up,I think that she is disgusting and should put any money received to a charity.

Just goes to show how far the press will go to get a sensational headline.

This is akin to the daily mirror who sent an attractive journalist to entrap Jack Straw's son.

Should they have 'buried' the bad news, what! and loose a good story, pull the other one.

I don't want the world cup here, I didn't want the olympics here either. But there are a lot of football supporters in the UK and I hope they hold the daily mail to task. I think they should do what the people of Liverpool did to the sun after its reorting of Hillsborough, and have a boycott. Trouble is the people who read the mail are proberbly not football supporters.

6. At 1:22pm on 17 May 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:

"The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job."

I agree, but whose version of the truth?

Snitching seems to be a very popular past-time these days. What happened to discretion?

Worst of all - this wasn't 'news' - it was 'gossip'.

24. At 2:17pm on 17 May 2010, Dr Malcolm Alun Williams wrote:

"12. At 1:43pm on 17 May 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:
We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it.
----------------------
Hear hear!"

I agree, we can't afford something that will bring in more revenue to the UK than it will cost. Let's give it away to someone else...

*slaps forehead*

Our papers are bad enough but the TV have now taken on this tabloid approach partly to grab headlines but also because it is a lazy form of reporting to repeat what is in the papers
Most newspapers have a political agenda both Brown and the country have suffered because of this in the last few years. It is gradually getting worse. At one time they did publish news now it's opinion and gossip. However we bring it on ourselves by buying these papers
This hype is dangerous in that one day there will be a real crisis or danger and no one will believe what they read. Swine flu, climate change, child safety etc etc one drama after another all over dramatised leaving us less credulous each time. Not only that we are left with a distorted picture of life in the UK. We live in the second safest country in the world for children, complaints against the health service are minute compared to the number of patients treated, our murder rate is very low but the papers paint a totally different picture. Other countries don't accept this from their press. We could stop it if we refused to give our money to these wealthy press magnates.They don't care a jot about this country
Now we have the added factor the publishing of private conversations. Just look how the media reported Brown's remarks about Mrs Duffey without a care for her feelings and the public blamed Brown with no condemnation of Sky News for broadcasting the hurtful remarks. In private we would have no time for anyone who made private conversations public but we accept it from the press. It's time for us to make up our minds we either let them carry on publishing biased half truths or we refuse to buy
The best medium for both the truth and accuracy is Radio 4 news this is far more balanced and free from bias partly because it is widely listened to abroad and therefore has a reputation to maintain but it is also free from the power of the press barons

I don't know if this was entrapment or not, and don't really care since I wouldn't demean myself by reading trash like the Daily Mail. There is an issue here of trust. Do we really want people in the public eye to feel that they can't say anything to anybody, that every word they say has to be perfect? I've never yet met anybody who never said something injudicious. It shouldn't be a crime, and it most certainly should not be "news". The fault here lies not with the Press, but with their readers. Large numbers of readers of the gutter Press, by which I mean all but three national dailies, revel in the downfall of public figures, even if it has been orchestrated by some creep masquerading as a journalist. When a substantial part of society harbours such anti-social feelings, then we are indeed a sick society. Sick because these people can't see anything wrong with it, so they're not going to try and become better people - the type that gives somebody the benefit of the doubt.

Aren't we supposed to be living in an age of honesty and transparency?

The Mail on Sunday & the Daily Mail wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the bum. They are not fit to use as toilet tissue.

"We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it."

Absolute rubbish. Everything is in place now. We could have it tomorrow without needing to invest a penny.

Surely the point was the man was stating that he had reason to believe skullduggery but no proof at that point-he was just speaking causally. The Whistle Blower was it seems looking to make a quick buck and the newspaper was seeking the usual headlines.You have to question a so called friend who tapes conversations?Who is fitting up who?
One also has to question the printing of such material especially when so much rides on the bid to have the World Cup here in 2018. Its the old story, why cant we have a law which says you can only print what is absolutely true not heresay or half truths or in the case of newspapers-total fiction.Looks like someone doesnt want England to get the World Cup-which suggests collusion somewhere.Perhaps the Mail would like to find out?-or isnt that news?

t 1:43pm on 17 May 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:
We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it.

***************************

What a ridiculous, ill thought out comment. We already have more than our fair share of world class football stadia, thanks to the Premier League clubs and most (if not all) are in close proximity to existing transport hubs. Which just leaves the cost of promoting it, which I would hope could be recouped through ticket sales.

The last Labour govt has been doing this for their own interests for the 13 years they were mismanaging the country, it is time for the truth and an end to the culture of spin and lies

FIFA is just as anti-English as it European counter part UEFA.
This scandal will not effect the outcome,rejection was already guaranteed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If this Cameron Clegg deal is a clean start for the country how about the press only print when they are absolutely sure of their facts.

Anyone in a position of authority who is found guilty of fraud or mismanagement of their power should go with no golden handshakes.

Let's get scrub Britain until she bleeds and then we can be sure that what we are told or read is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It might interest the press/media that the public are actually interested in the news - not the daily gossip comics they serve up with our cornflakes.

A load of codswallop!

Everyone says things in private that they might not say publicly. I know I do! Look at Mr. Brown and his bigot comment - I don't believe he resigned his MP spot, didn't he?

Anyway, he wasn't exactly plotting murder or a terrorist bombing.

Shame on the person who possibly set him up & cheap news.

If a story is true and in everyones interest it should be reported. entrapment by the press should be illegal, why are papers able to blatantly lie about people time after time and then apologise in a tiny line in the paper when proven wrong time and again.

Why not make them print the apology on the same page in the same type as the original story, and if their sales were up that day all revenue over their average for that day be the fine.

The press virtually run this country and seemingly have absolutely no controls on them!

Foolish newspaper, foolish remarks. Both of no real importance.

50. At 3:27pm on 17 May 2010, Hyder Ali Pirwany wrote:
Aren't we supposed to be living in an age of honesty and transparency?


----

do you actually live on earth?

we go to wars based on lies in which millions are effected. we blow up our own underground and towers and blame others for our own benefits. the MP's who run our country and very honest - right? Age of honesty and transparency? we live in a age of DNA databases and ID Cards. We are increasing turning the worlds populations into mindless robots who are subdued by the state. we are told what to eat, drink, think and beleive. the media is key in all this.

do not beleive me? how come during the general election nobody was talking about the wars we are still involved in? it seemed as if the wars had been paused. that little dispute in palastine - its still ongoing! people only care are issues that are in the media and the media as a result can make you think what they want - in most peoples cases anyway!

Is there a case for suppressing bad press if it is in the national interest?
___________________________________

Not sure. Maybe. What were the reasons for the BBC burying the Philippa Stroud story during the election?

"Should bad news be buried in the national interest?"

Doesn't it worry people that a state owned media source would ask this question?

I hope you read other sources.

Re 16 LippyLippo

I think that you have fallen for the character assassination tactics of the Press in saying that Tony Blair only got this one item right in describing the Press as feral.
Apart from that I could not agree more with your comments – comprehensive, precise and accurate.
My mind picture of the Press is of politically motivated owners and the worst aspects of our money driven society.

JAMESTHOUGHT

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What newspaper would not have printed the story, had they got the tape?
None of them care about the damage they may do to the England bid, marriage, reputation etc... depending on the story they have to publish.
If we lose the bid, it will be due to the Mail on Sunday as they chose to publish, rather than Lord Triesman, though he was obviously rather dim if he could not keep his mouth shut.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

He should have been smart enough not to say it.
If he is that gullible good job he has gone.
Hopefully without a pay off.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The quote put here by the Beeb seems to be 'IF Ru....' sounds like a reply to a very particular question (don't know what it was - perhaps 'what should happen if...'
I think a fair hearing of the whole conversation would likely settle most peoples minds as to the sense of the resignation. I care nothing for football (its a boring game for overpaid overego'd kids), but this 'row' seems to make little sense. There is one other thing - we all are pretty sure there are many 'back room deals', 'expenses' or other payoffs that change hands in this and many other lucrative fields (including banks and politics), frankly if the guy had said 'we can't bribe as much as others so we are bound to lose' that and that alone would have been interesting, unexpected and newsworthy.

I think by now with all the scandalous bribery that goes on in sports, people realize that even their favorite pastimes have been infiltrated by criminals.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why is it that whenever anyone in public life is caught saying something stupid, the cry is always "entrapment"?

Ronald Reagan (1980s) joked about let's nuke Russia when he thought he was off-mike. Gordon Brown (this year) got caught muttering about a bigotted woman, and now we have Lord Treisman getting caught with his foot firmly lodged in his mouth!

It isn't entrapment, it's opening your mouth without engaging your brain!

When will people ever learn to keep their traps firmly shut?

" 12. At 1:43pm on 17 May 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:
We cannot afford the World Cup. Let someone else have it."

While we are at give the olympics to someone else.

If it is not true Lord whatshisname should sue the newspaper concerned. If he wins then the presiding judge should award damages of twice the newspaper income on the day to serve as an object lesson to other trashy newspapers regarding setting honey traps under the guise of journalism.
It is the job of newspapers to report the news truthfully and not to manufacture it to sell newspapers!

The two phrases which raise my hackles are 'in the national interest' and 'in the public interest', normally deployed when the great and good want to keep some dubious/criminal action under wraps from the nation and or the public.

All these comments are laughable. What sort of idiot believes what they read in the press or hear on the radio or television. If you keep buying rubbish the cheapskates will sell it.

On the general question, bad news should never be buried, too much of it went on during the time of the previous Government, infamously around the time of September 11th where it was actually phrased like that by a minister or their aide.

However whenever people sue the press and win, like the former head of F1, good luck to them - especially if it's the Daily "The Editor earns £3.2m but will still criticise the salaries of others" Mail.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Burying bad news" is just another way of saying censorship and that should only be contemplated when the national morale is at stake such as during WW2 when certain disastrous events were best kept out of the limelight.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"6. At 1:22pm on 17 May 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:

The media should publish The Truth, The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether that be good or bad news, this is their Job.

And do you believe in fairies as well?

3. At 1:15pm on 17 May 2010, Caz wrote:

Someone in his position should really have been more careful about what he was saying and to whom!I don't think there is a reason to supress bad press, even if it's in the so-called 'national interest' - who decides what is in the 'national interest' anyway? I personally don't consider England's 2018 bid to host the World Cup that interesting - hardly a matter of enormous importance or impacting on national security!

I agree in principle but what purpose did publishing this achieve, It showed Lord Treisman is a prat with poor judgement and damaged Englands bid. Some people would like England to hold the world cup and to damage that prospect for what is really an insignificant story seems like poor judgement itself.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All hardly surprising - either what Triesman said, or what he alleges is going on. If we lose the World Cup, it won't be the first time.... I seem to remember a dog found it on one of those occasions. Better call Lassie.

Should bad news be buried in the national interest?

It would take a big big hole to bury Parliament and all the banks, but I am sure there is an adequate place for them to be burried.

Corruption and bribary in all sport should be exposed, rooted out and the perpetrators severely punished with custodial sentences and heavy fines, end of story.

To quote George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well, first off, if the Mail said the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check for myself. I don't believe a word that this "newspaper" has to say, although personally I don't care very much about any world cup bid.

As for "Is there a case for suppressing bad press if it is in the national interest?", well yes, sometimes. As others have pointed out, there were cases in WW2 where it was necessary for morale / propaganda purposes.

Also, the media has some on-going problems when reporting on Science, Technology and Health issues, sometimes this can get quite absurd/dangerous (stories about the LHC creating a black hole, vaccine scares, etc). In such cases, especially where there's a significant danger to the nation's health being caused by such a scare story, yes the "freedom of the press" should be immediately revoked, and the paper in question taken out of business.

The place to draw the line is "is freedom of press likely to put innocent people's lives at risk". If it is, it should be revoked, at least until the problem has been sorted,

To put the ball into your nations own net is indeed bizarre. Whether it be a Lord who spoke inappropriately or the newspaper editor who just had to publish it. As a football fan I feel betrayed by both.

Big own goal for the mail.
I wouldn't accept it for free if i ran out of loo roll.

The Mail could have published that a "high level source" was reported to have said, etc etc, and then put on pressure directly with the FA to get rid of Treisman or they would out him. But they chose, quite deliberately, to put a spanner in the works of our bi to host the World Cup. I'm not rich enough to go abroad to watch a World Cup finals game, and I would dearly like to take my children to games in 2018. The Mail self-interested unpatriotic actions may have prevented this. Football fans do not forget the actions of newspapers. Ask the Sun, which has been effectively kicked out of Merseyside since a report they did on the Hillborough tragedy.

In certain circumstances, it's justifiable to bury bad news in the national interest, but not this one. The last time we could justify any of that was when we fought WWII when we couldn't just release anything that could potentially demoralise the troops. But this is nothing and shouldn't be buried.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

it all depends on the party politics of the story.
i hated seeing the press in action against gordon brown but everyone bought it hook line and sinker. so i am not bothered when i see the same machine working in different ways.
please remember stabing is dangerous for the knife. besides people are highly motivated and used to poor and negative press stories so they only get what they deserve.
as for national interests. since when were the money motivated people of this country interested in any other than their own personal gains?
with money as their god and the press as their idol makers let the whole thing go down the drain it aint worth saving.