Thread by @mafevema

I am in two minds about this.
Many investigations-e.g for fraud but also other potentially criminal behaviour - prove to be baseless. Is it right that people should be vilified by public opinion, theguardian.com/world/2022/feb…

their reputation destroyed, sometimes for ever ("there is no smoke without fire" etc) when they have not even be charged? I don't buy the argument that this will only benefit the wealthy & powerful. If there was well established case law, it would benefit everyone & the tabloids

would have to take notice or pay big fines. Often there is far more noise around the investigation itself than there is when it is dropped (often not reported at all) & they can go on limply for years before they are officially closed. Provided there is a public

interest defence e.g. for politicians or dangerous criminals, it seems fair. Papers reporting under that exemption should be obliged to give equal prominence to a later abandonment of the investigation. People shouldn't be thrown to the wolves on the basis of an investigation

before the prosecution charge them, which means there is a case to answer.

I am in two minds about this as I wouldn't want it yonprevent reporting on say, the Trump's investigation (or Johnson's party gate) but there is a strong public interest defence in those cases. Tricky balance.