No prospect of litigation in the US: you can say what you liike about a public figure unless it's both false and reckless. Even in Oz, truth is a complete defence, so you can call a lie a lie, provided you can prove it is one.
In some sense, deference to power is part of the story, but not in a straightforward way
I’m probably stating the obvious but could it be that the powerful and litigious prevent such directness?
No prospect of litigation in the US: you can say what you liike about a public figure unless it's both false and reckless. Even in Oz, truth is a complete defence, so you can call a lie a lie, provided you can prove it is one.
In some sense, deference to power is part of the story, but not in a straightforward way
That's right. I fixed it on the blogs, but the newsletter had already gone out