Media Law & Ethics - Lecture 3, 29/01/14

Defamation and Libel;

As a journalist you have to know the legal system inside out, when reporting crime defamation and libel is another big danger area; 

"Don't ever hold back from suggesting to a colleague that there might be any legal risk."

Ian Anderson

Learning about defamation is key as any legal problems will not do your career any good especially when considering your reputation, knowing these legal problems will help. If you do get involved with any legal scrapes it can be demoralising and expensive. As a journalist you will be much better at your job if you know where the dangers and risks are regarding any legalities.

Defamation; what is it?

• A statement written or broadcast that has affected a person or business's reputation.
• Has lowered them in estimation of right thinking people.
• Causes them to be shunned or avoided.
• Disparages them in their business, trade or profession.
• Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt. 

Defamation via pictures;

• This is a common danger in TV broadcast, can cause juxtaposition problems.
• Careless use of background shots with voice over can be defamatory.
• People or companies must not be identifiable in certain contexts, e.g. Child abuse, fraud. 
• Inaccurate shots.

Reputation and meaning;

Your reputation is precious, especially if you are in the public eye, have money or both! Be on your guard when writing your report on big brands and celebrities, it is key that you evaluate the risks when writing about certain people. 

• whether something is defamatory is in the eyes of the regular person. It will be judged by the jury, just like in the court of law. The new act however cuts back on the jury and cases will be judged only by the judge. 
• Inference is a hazard - read your content back to yourself before you send it.
• Innuendo is also a hazard. 

The three key elements;

Publication + defamation + identification = LIBEL 

Libel defences;

• Risk of libel is dangerous. Low threshold of proof for whether the statement is defamatory.
• Statement must cause 'serious harm' - forced you to leave job, lost money etc. Hitting an ego more than a livelihood is not libel. 
• Truth, previously justification  is true and you can prove it.
• Honest opinion, previously fair comment is the test for fair comment and must show that it is an opinion which could be held by an honest person based upon a known fact at the time of writing. 
• Public interest, the main campaigning issues that people argue for.

(Reynolds defence was raised in the late 1990s when Reynolds, the irish prime minister tried to sue the sunday times for a defamatory article. The newspaper argued it was in the publics interest and won. the issue was raising was in public interest, they were allowed the defence. If you can show that it is overwhelmingly in the public's interest then you will be okay.) 

• Web publication protections that are new. It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. 
• Peer reviewed academic journals are privileged. 
• Absolute privilege - court reporting
• Qualified privilege - police quotes, pressers etc. 
• Single publication rule
• Bane and antidote - defamation removed by content. 

No defence when;

• You have not checked your facts. 
• When you have not 'referred up' and failed to check with news editor.
• Always put yourself in the shoes of the person to see how it might be viewed.
• Getting carried away with a 'juicy' story.
• Not bothered to wait for lawyers opinion.

Recognise the risk;

• Who am I writing about and could they sue?
• Is what I am writing potentially defamatory?

2013 act;

This act protects people with very little resources in order that small businesses don't go bankrupt. Community news website, for example, would not be taken to libel at court as there is such a small chance of them being defamed. Balance is now being addressed to protect people from being defamed and giving them freedom of speech. 

The case we have previously studied known as McLibel where campaigners went up against a giant global company, McDonald's. The question being asked was were they that much of a threat to the company? Under the new regime this would not have gone to court, the campaigners had their freedom to campaign about it. 

A new defamation act is in force from December which is slightly different to the libel defences in place. Roy Greenslade has researched and blogged about this new act and how the current libel cases are still being used with the old act. 

Current Libel cases;

• Andrew Michael - Plebgate row
• Lord McAlpine - BBC NewsNight. He also went after all the tweeters commenting on the case in particular Sally Bercow's tweet "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"
• Jigsaw identification - because of social media it has now entered the world of defamation.