I mentioned this in a thread yesterday, but am interested to see whether anybody would be able to clear it up possibly

Tabloids publish lies regularly. We all know that. Sensationalism sells. It's in their interests to stretch the truth, as they make more money. But when they are found to be lying, they only have to print tiny apologies/retractions towards the middle of the paper that barely anybody reads. And even if they do, the damage is already done

Would it be possible to punish publications in blatant circumstances (I mentioned the Piers Morgan/troops story that the Mirror ran with in the thread yesterday) by just taking the newspaper off the shelves for one day? Surely the loss of revenue and possibility of readers deferring to a rival paper would force editors and journalists into being far more accountable?

Is this actually possible though? Would the papers be able to cite some kind of 'restriction of trade' law or something to prevent it? I know nothing about these things

I think it'd be a swell idea though