As a journalist we need to recognise risk at every turn and if we are in doubt, leave it out. One of the main risks that journalists face is to ensure that they do not say anything that is rude or insulting to anyone. This is where we enter the realms of defamation and libel.
But, before we go any further, what exactly is defamation?
It is when someone writes or broadcasts something about a individual or a group of people that can defame them and lead to the following, according to the 21st edition of McNae's
* It can expose the person to hatred, ridicule and contempt.
* It can cause them to become shunned and avoided.
* Lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
* Disparage the person in their business, trade, office or profession.
As a reporter on WINOL for the last year and a half, I have had to be very careful that my story is almost balanced and that if it focuses on a individual or group (which in politics it can be very well be the case) that I ensure there is balance to ensure there is no defamatory statement and that no one has been libelled.
This was the case last year where I planned to cover a story on a ongoing dispute between the Conservative and Labour Councillors at Southampton City Council. The story was centred around a website created by a member of the Southampton Conservative party who accused the current Leader of Southampton City Council on helping influence the trade unions on striking and causing disruption during the summer of 2011.
I had to be extremely careful as the website was clearly defaming the council leader and I could not do the story without any comment from Labour, but this was not the case. Therefore, I had to drop the story because if I had gone ahead with any balance there is clear identification of the individual, it has been published on the WINOL bulletin and it is in the person would of been defamed.
These are the three main ingredinent that are needed to clearly indetify that someone has been libelled.
PUBLICATION+DEFAMATION+IDENTIFICATION= LIBEL
There are a few defences to Libel, but you have to ensure that these defences are solid as a rock before using them.
Justification: To justify your statement, you must ensure that it is true and you have the facts to back yourself up if you are taken to court. You need to ensure that you have your notes, your rushes, your shorthand notes, something that ultimately save your from criminal or civil prosecution. You must also ensure that your evidence you have cannot been misinterpreted and changed to show the statement is still defamatory, so ensure you have checked your facts and that every is 100% correct and foolproof.
A key example of this is the case involving former Conservative cabinet minister, Jonathan Aitken. A undercover operation by World In Action exposed Mr Aitken of dealing with the Saudi's in arms dealings and that he allowed a Arab businessman to pay for his bill in a hotel, a breach of parliamentary guidelines. A joint operation between World in Action and The Guardian provided that there was clear justification to publish these claims and led to Jonathan Aitken resigning from the Conservative party and being jailed for Perjury.
Fair comment: This must be a fair and honest account of a journalist and must be recognised as comment, rather than a allegation. The comment must be based on fact and it must be that keep thing that keep journalists within the realms of the law; in the public interest.
Absolute/Qualified Privilege: This is the most valuable defence to any journalists because in some situation our comment is free from prosecution. Absolute privilege gives use exemption from prosecution in situations involving court reporting and parliamentary proceedings. This is evident in parliament as a Conservative MP can call a Labour MP a idiot without threat of defamation. In court absolute privilege is guaranteed when there is fair and balance account of the courts proceedings and is published.
Qualified privilege is more important because the fact must be clear and in the public interests. This can involve situation including public meetings, press conferences and debate held in public. For QP to be used a defence, the information provided must be fair and accurate, without malice and in the public interest.
The Reynolds Defence is another key defence against defamation and libel, but I will give more context to this defence in a separate blog post.
These defences are helpful to a journalist who remains careful and vigilant in their stories, but there is situation where you have no defence against defamation or libel. These can include:
* When you have not checked your facts.
* When you have not "referred up" to your editor.
* When you do not put yourself in the persons situation.
* You get carried away by the story.
* You do not wait for legal opinion.
This check list of what not to do has been ticked off by the BBC at least once in the last few months with the ongoing investigation into the Newsnight allegations against Jimmy Saville and Lord McAlpine. In the case of Saville the evidence is clear and identification and fair comment will suffice as it is in the clear public interest. But, in the case of the Lord McAlpine and the allegation that he was a child abuse in Wales in the 1970's, there was clear evidence that facts were not checked and that the reporters had not referred to their news editor.
This has led to a £185,000 payment to Lord McAlpine by the BBC, two investigation into the Newsnight programme and the sacking of many senior executives at the BBC including the Director of News and the Director General. The main thing that astounds me is that the journalists covering this story did not do the most basic thing to ensure that this story was true, they did not call Lord McAlpine to get his comments on the allegations. If you do not know if the facts are true, then call the person involved and find them out. These are the basic ethical principles that have led to journalism being brought into disrepute and again having to rebuild reputations across society.
When planning a story as a journalist, the first thing I have to do and I will keep saying this until it is imbedded in my mind is to recognise risk. I need to ask myself who am I writing about and could this person potentially sue me? I need to ensure wherever I am working that I ask for legal advice at any point I am unsure of something. If you do not ask the question, you will not know the answer.
Libel has been seen as a lottery to make money out of people and this has seen a recent Libel Reform Bill be made to be passed through the House of Lords. The bill would see a change to the current law to make it harder for people to sue for the sake of getting money, rather than repairing their claimed "damaged reputation."
It is interesting as it bring up the questions, when a celebrity makes a libel claim against a journalist or a member of the general public, are they doing it for their reputation or to fill their already inflated pockets from more spare change? The debate is still out, but it will be interesting to see what happens if the bill is passed through parliament and the libel laws become a lot stricter.
What is evident I think though is that laws do need to be change, but the training and practice of journalism needs to change at the same time as there has been too many example of rogue journalism for my liking and I see now why ethical practice is the core of what every journalism should follow when covering a story about anything or anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment