I have written quite a lot about the whole affair but have always pointed at the sources for any alleged facts I mention. In a way, speculation is my business – I digest the news and then give my opinion on it, sometimes indicating where it seems to make no sense. Logical deduction from the assertions of others, you could call it (not that I necessarily get it right – I am working with sometimes suspect facts, after all).

Balfe is really overstating his case. The headline “Race Fans Believe McLaren Guilty” was only slightly misleading in that it was reporting the results of a survey of fans in Germany, whereas it sounds as though all fans subscribe to the idea. A quick scan of the article reveals this. But the point is that, certainly in the online media, most articles have reported facts as they emerge without commenting upon them. It is a fact, for instance, that the survey mentioned produced that result.

And that is the job of journalism – to report the facts. Almost all of the so-called facts regarding Coughlan’s affidavit originate in the Italian media and all the articles I have seen report this without saying whether it is credible or not. It is in the forums that sides are taken and dubious assertions taken as facts.

But that is the nature of forums; they are private discussions in a public place. And the fact that they are public is what has made ITV decide to limit them – by allowing their forums to be open they could be said to be publishing them.

I’ve never been on ITV’s forums, I’d rather search out a more informed view on sites like this and BlogF1.

For sure, there will be the ‘tabloid blogs’, there are also the ‘tabloid media’. And then there are the intelligent few who generate thoughtful articles on something that is potentially huge in their chosen field of interest.

With regards to the ITV Forums, honestly, why would anyone participate in ITVs forums? What do you honestly expect? They’re an international company with a reputation to uphold/improve (I would lean towards ‘improve’). Of course they’re gonna moderate and protect. Some people need to learn that the internet is a big, crude and ugly beast. Of course, it can be also be a resource of wonderfully written information. Suing over the difference is immature,

It was easy to do this when only professional journalists did widespread coverage of stories like this. Now, though, lots of people comment, and people are prepared to look at a lot of different sources. Could you imagine chunther’s comment about an amateur web site being regarded as better than the professional equivalent ten, or even five years ago?

The catch is that amateurs tend to be less careful about libel. This is why the ITV censorship has kicked in. It’s not to stop responsible people from talking about the case, it’s to make sure legal process has half a chance of reaching a just decision. Normally I hate censorship, but this time I understand.

The purpose of the show is to debunk an assortment of shady dealings; the snake oil salesmen of our time. The first episode was about spirit mediums, people that pretend they can speak with your dead loved ones.

Getting to the point, however, is that the reason they must title their show with a cuss word and use similarly foul language to describe the people they debunk, is because according to the law, if they call someone a liar or a fraud on television, they can be sued, but simply calling someone a jerk or an asshole holds no such weight in court. Because of this, they choose the latter route.

Speculation is a dangerous thing if we can be held libelous for statements we make in what are not professional, but are arguably journalistic forums. It partly bothers me that a website can be sued in the Mumsnet way, but that also validates this medium. It is worth noting that I turn to f1fanatic.co.uk before I turn to the F1 website, because the information here is more thorough and better organized. Think about that a moment.