Quote Originally Posted by Newish Pie View Post
But if you go the opposite way and you only allow "trial by trial" and won't hear a word said against anyone by anyone for any reason unless a jury has pronounced on it, you end up silencing the media. If you silence the media, the rich and powerful get away with even less scrutiny. There needs to be a balance. And the media haven't always got it right.

Brand isn't in trouble because he was investigated. He's in trouble because he was investigated and evidence of his behaviour was uncovered. The weight of that evidence and the number of allegations is such that it persuaded the media lawyers that they could defend their position in court if sued for libel. What's happening to Brand isn't the consequences of an investigation, it's the consequences of his own actions.
Brand represents zero danger whatsoever to democracy or civilisation. His case is not relevant one iota when compared to the value of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

That aside, at no point have I advocated for "silencing" the media. The most I've said is that gossip (which this is until aforementioned milestones in a criminal case) belongs in a gossip column, not under a "news" banner.