This is a big danger area in reporting crime… correction…
huge danger!
Defamation occurs when a statement:
1)Lowers a person in the minds of right thinking people
2) Exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt
3) Causes the person to be shunned or avoided
4) Disparages the person in their business, trade, or profession
1)Lowers a person in the minds of right thinking people
2) Exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt
3) Causes the person to be shunned or avoided
4) Disparages the person in their business, trade, or profession
Reputation is precious, especially if you are in the public
eye, have a lot of money, or even both, so if a publication has somehow managed
to damage their reputation, they will go after them.
Inference is a massive hazard, you need to consider how the
content is interpreted in the context of the whole article. Different people
infer different meanings so ask other people to check your article, the more
brains you get involved the checking process then the more likely it is that
someone will spot libellous content.
Some publications are a little bit cheeky and use “bane and
antidote” as a way to publicise otherwise defamatory material. Bane and
antidote is where a defamatory statement is then removed by the context of the
whole article. For example publications often superimpose celebrity faces on actors
bodies in questionable scenarios, which at first glance would be incredibly
defamatory. The publication then saves itself by outlining its use of actors
and clarifying these are not the celebrities actual actions. However this is
risky as often readers won’t look much further than the headline and picture,
so may never actually read the “antidote” section of the article.
Defamation is a big worry for journalist for one main reason…money.
Defamation cases can result in huge damages being paid, costing the publication
a lot of money, and that’s without considering the legal costs on top of that.
An example of a recent defamation case is Chris Jefferies
2011 as mentioned in my “reporting crime” blog post. Chris Jefferies was
awarded substantial libel damages after newspapers repeatedly published defamatory
material about him which proved to be untrue.Chris Jefferies receives libel pay out This kind of mistake is an embarrassment
for the media, an expensive embarrassment.
There is a constant risk of libel for the media at the
minute, due to the seemingly never ending list of celebrities being accused of
sexual offences. Journalists have to be very careful how they cover such a high
profile sex offence case as the accusations are extremely defamatory to a person’s
character. Even when a person is proved innocent, the public often fail to
distant themselves from the allegations that were made, which is no fault of
the media, but highlights how damaging these claims can be. An example of this
is Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster, a mechanic on Coronation Street.
Michael Le Vell was accused of 19 charges of child sex offences and was cleared
of all the offences. However his reputation in the public mind was severely damaged.
Journalists also have to be aware of the risk of defamation
via pictures which is a common risk in broadcast journalism. The careless use
of background shots teamed with a voiceover can be very defamatory depending on
the context. People and companies should not be identifiable in certain
contexts such as child abuse or fraud.
There are defences in place to protect journalists from
libel:
1) The statement must cause “serious harm” – harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause “serious financial loss”.
2) The statement is true (previously known as justification)
3) Honest opinion (previously known as fair comment). The defendant must show that it is a an opinion that could be held by an “honest person” based upon a known fact at the time of writing. There must not be any malice as this will completely undermine your defence. As a journalist you should be distantly disinterested.
4) Public interest (previously known as Reynolds defence) “the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
5) In web publication it is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
6) Absolute privilege – court reporting
7) Qualified privilege – police quotes, press releases etc.
8) Bane and antidote
9) Apologies and clarification
10) Single publication rule
1) The statement must cause “serious harm” – harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause “serious financial loss”.
2) The statement is true (previously known as justification)
3) Honest opinion (previously known as fair comment). The defendant must show that it is a an opinion that could be held by an “honest person” based upon a known fact at the time of writing. There must not be any malice as this will completely undermine your defence. As a journalist you should be distantly disinterested.
4) Public interest (previously known as Reynolds defence) “the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
5) In web publication it is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
6) Absolute privilege – court reporting
7) Qualified privilege – police quotes, press releases etc.
8) Bane and antidote
9) Apologies and clarification
10) Single publication rule
There is no defence when you have not checked your facts!
There is no time for laziness in this game! Refer up and get your facts
checked. If you do not wait for a lawyers opinion or get carried away by a
spicy story then you only have yourself to blame.
