Reflection is key for journalists, they understand that the golden rule is to seek professional legal advice if a publication is likely to cause threat of libel. If you are not aware of media laws it's unlikely that you will pick up on matters over what the media can and can't say, and sometimes its the case where they have over stepped the mark and can be sued for their damaging reports. A notable example of this was when landlord Chris Jefferies won "very substantial" settlements in libel action against eight national newspapers for articles published about him after the death of his tenant Joanna Yeates. More on the matter here.
Defamation laws try to strike a balance between the individual right to a reputation and the right to freedom of speech, but media organisations can fight defamation actions providing they have a grounded defence.
A statement is defamatory if what you write or broadcast about someone or a company lowers their reputation. Material published is defamatory if it tends to lower them in estimation of righting thinking people, causes them to be shunned or avoided, disparages them in their business trade or profession and/or expose them to hatred ridicule or contempt.
Billions of articles are turned around continuously all over the world, but it is the words which are potentially fatal to a news outlet; as they can carry an innuendo or 'hidden' meaning which may be clear to people with specialist knowledge. In 2012, Lord McAlphine was at the centre of a libel claim, after Newsnight broadcast a report wrongly implicating that he was involved in sexual abuse of children. BBC newsnight issued a formal apology. Although Lord McAlphine was not named in the broadcast, Sally Bercow tweeted: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*." which was ruled as libellous in the High Court. We have to consider jigsaw identification, this is when the anonymity of a person is identifiable because of a combination of details published. When there are juveniles concerned we have to be even more careful that a series of characteristics cannot be pieced together to reveal their identity.
According to the new Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless it's publication has caused "serious harm" to the reputation of the claimant. This alteration to the act was enforced to prevent journalists from facing unfair legal threats whereby they may have fairly criticised a company or person in the past. The Ministry of Justice said the act would provide "clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions". The claimant cannot sue for libel if the statement written about them is the "truth", therefore, providing journalists stick to the facts they are safe. The Act also includes other safety measures such as the right to publish content if it is a matter of "public interest", and if it is "honest opinion", based upon a known fact at the time of writing. The new Defamation Act has also tightened the test for claims from those with little connection to England and Wales being brought before the courts, this is known as "libel tourism". With journalism growing online, the new Act includes a defence for "operators of websites", who will be protected if they have proof that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. A single publication rule prevents repeated claims against a publisher about the same material.
Any defences that you hold will automatically be weakened if you are showing malice. This means that you have shown signs of wanting to cause harm; you have to prove that you are disinterested in the matter you are reporting.
Defamation via pictures is also a common danger in TV, it's not always just about what you write or say, for instance juxtaposition libel where you may have a headline reading "sex crimes up" against a picture of the local politician - which implies he is the cause of it. Video journalists have to make sure that they are not careless with their background shots when writing their voice overs. Peoples names and companies must not be identified in certain contexts for instance in fraud or child abuse cases. It's simply sloppy journalism if we don't use precise shots.
Journalists have absolute privilege when they are reporting on court cases, this means what they are reporting on is a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in public. If it was heard in court, and no reporting restrictions apply they can report it, providing it is published contemporaneously on the first available publication. However, this privilege does not apply if the proceedings are held in private, as we saw last week in Scotland with the private hearing of Rosdeep Kular charged with the murder of her 3-year-old son.
The basic requirements for the qualified privilege defence, such as police quotes or press releases is that it is fair, accurate, without malice and in the public interest. This means the public must benefit from this matter of concern and that it is without spite towards the claimant.
You will not have a leg to stand on in court if you are sued for libel, and you have not checked the facts. If you simply haven't asked an editor to verify what you are saying, or you get carried away trying to 'sex' up a story then you are in danger. Think about putting yourself in the shoes of who you are writing about, if you are not absolutely sure you are reporting truthfully based on fact, then wait for a lawyers opinion, it'll pay in the long run.
Ask yourselves two questions, is what I am writing potentially defamatory? and if so, do I have a defence?
No comments:
Post a Comment