Well it has been a while since I produced a media law blog, so tonight (and possibly tomorrow) you have the pleasure of sitting through a mini-marathon of media law. Tonight we will start with the word that strikes fear into the hearts of all journalists: Defamation.
Defamation is how you make someone appear to the outside world. This statement or accusation has to be beyond personally hurtful and potentially threaten their personal life, as well as their reputation within society. This defamatory statement will be made through riddle, malice or with the intent of lowering a person's reputation within social circles and personally affect their earning power within their profession or trade.
This means, for example if I was to say that after playing Tennis with Andy Murray that I had a better serve than him, this could be seen as a defamatory statement as it could affect his standing within his profession. However, if I was to suggest that my ironing was better than my housemate's then this statement would not be seen as defamatory as this is not my housemate's profession and could not affect his earning power.
Defamation can have the affect to financially ruin someone. Within whole news organisations there are certain celebrities who they will stay away from in any way where they could defame this person's reputation. This is known as "the chilling effect". "The chilling effect" can be caused when a newspaper print a story about a certain celebrity, who will then automatically sue the newspaper and try to cause major financial damages to that newspapers. The way this will be done is in a long drawn-out libel case where the legal costs for the newspaper could become astronomical. Therefore there is one key statement that every journalists needs to follow: NEVER WRITE ANYTHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ELTON JOHN OR YOUR GETTING SUED!
It is not just publishing a story yourself where you can be caught for making a defamatory statement. Publishing through a third party can catch you out, even thought the person does not need to be named. This is because there are three things that need to be accomplished before a statement can be seen as defamatory:
1. The statement needs to be defamatory.
2. The statement needs to be published someone.
3. The person needs to be indentified.
One safeguard we have as journalists is justification. Justification is the sheer truth of the story, however you need to have the evidence or the facts required to back up your statement. The most high-profile case where justification has been used was in the case of the former Conservative minister, Jonathan Aitken. In 1995 The Guardian with help from the ITV programme World In Action exposed Aitken for meeting up with leading Saudi who has been paying for his lengthy stay at The Ritz in Paris.
The World in Action filmed named "Jonathan of Arabia" was broadcasted and let to a libel case being filed by Jonathan Aitken against World In Action. However the case was dropped in June 1997 due to the evidence brought upon by the joint Guardian/World in action venture exposing the potential arms deals Aitken had with his Saudi associate.
The substantial amount of evidence against Jonathan Aitken led to him being charged with perjury and perverting the courts of justice and was handed an 18-month prison sentence in 1999. This was due to the justification that The Guardian and World in Action had against Aitken as they had the evidence to support their statement.
Another key defence Journalists have against defamation is that lovely word that keep cropping up time and time again; Privilege. Qualified privilege gives used us the protection to write something that is damaging. However this needs to be done in the public interest in order to show that no malice has been intended. An prime example of this would be in the an murder case, showing that the justice in the United Kingdom is doing the right thing as it will gain positivity and the backing of the general public. As journalists we have to remember that these laws have been created by the government to protect us and to ensure that we do not end up in front of a judge in breach of contempt of court.
The Third and final defence that we have as journalists is fair comment. Fair comment will be honest comment which you believe as a journalist is based upon truthful facts. The law on fair comment is questionable, therefore it can be easily interpreted and you will lose and defence you have against you if their is any malice or intent in your statement to damage someone personally. According to McNae's the main requirement of the fair comment defence can be summarised as being that:
* The published comment must be honestly held opinion of the person making it (thought it may have been published by another party);
* The comment should be recognisable (i.e. to the reader/viewer/listener) as opinion i.e. it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation;
* The comment must be based upon provably true facts/privileged matter;
* Those facts/ that matter must be recognisably alluded to or state in what is published with the comment, unless widely known that this is not necessary;
* The subject commented on should be a matter of public interest
For the defence to succeed, all of there requirement must be met. However there is another way that fair comment can be hidden in the form of bone and antidote. This is when you will say something that may be seen as defamatory, but you will qualify and back your statement up later on in the article.
Defamation could end up potentially destroying your career and ruining your reputation as a journalist. The key to ensuring that you do not end up facing a libel case is to ensure that everything you write is based on facts, you have the evidence to back up those facts and that the article is written in the public interested without MALICE OR INTENT.
There is one other thing you can do and that is write an article without prejudice against someone and then the law will become blind to the article. However everyone loves a little bit of scandal when reading their morning newspaper. Just make sure that everything you write is the less and not a point blank lie.
One safeguard we have as journalists is justification. Justification is the sheer truth of the story, however you need to have the evidence or the facts required to back up your statement. The most high-profile case where justification has been used was in the case of the former Conservative minister, Jonathan Aitken. In 1995 The Guardian with help from the ITV programme World In Action exposed Aitken for meeting up with leading Saudi who has been paying for his lengthy stay at The Ritz in Paris.
The World in Action filmed named "Jonathan of Arabia" was broadcasted and let to a libel case being filed by Jonathan Aitken against World In Action. However the case was dropped in June 1997 due to the evidence brought upon by the joint Guardian/World in action venture exposing the potential arms deals Aitken had with his Saudi associate.
The substantial amount of evidence against Jonathan Aitken led to him being charged with perjury and perverting the courts of justice and was handed an 18-month prison sentence in 1999. This was due to the justification that The Guardian and World in Action had against Aitken as they had the evidence to support their statement.
Another key defence Journalists have against defamation is that lovely word that keep cropping up time and time again; Privilege. Qualified privilege gives used us the protection to write something that is damaging. However this needs to be done in the public interest in order to show that no malice has been intended. An prime example of this would be in the an murder case, showing that the justice in the United Kingdom is doing the right thing as it will gain positivity and the backing of the general public. As journalists we have to remember that these laws have been created by the government to protect us and to ensure that we do not end up in front of a judge in breach of contempt of court.
The Third and final defence that we have as journalists is fair comment. Fair comment will be honest comment which you believe as a journalist is based upon truthful facts. The law on fair comment is questionable, therefore it can be easily interpreted and you will lose and defence you have against you if their is any malice or intent in your statement to damage someone personally. According to McNae's the main requirement of the fair comment defence can be summarised as being that:
* The published comment must be honestly held opinion of the person making it (thought it may have been published by another party);
* The comment should be recognisable (i.e. to the reader/viewer/listener) as opinion i.e. it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation;
* The comment must be based upon provably true facts/privileged matter;
* Those facts/ that matter must be recognisably alluded to or state in what is published with the comment, unless widely known that this is not necessary;
* The subject commented on should be a matter of public interest
For the defence to succeed, all of there requirement must be met. However there is another way that fair comment can be hidden in the form of bone and antidote. This is when you will say something that may be seen as defamatory, but you will qualify and back your statement up later on in the article.
Defamation could end up potentially destroying your career and ruining your reputation as a journalist. The key to ensuring that you do not end up facing a libel case is to ensure that everything you write is based on facts, you have the evidence to back up those facts and that the article is written in the public interested without MALICE OR INTENT.
There is one other thing you can do and that is write an article without prejudice against someone and then the law will become blind to the article. However everyone loves a little bit of scandal when reading their morning newspaper. Just make sure that everything you write is the less and not a point blank lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment