Media Law - Defamation and Libel

What is defamation?

This is when something that you write:
- lowers them in estimation of right-thinking members of society generally
- causes them to be shunned or avoided
- disparages them in their business, trade or profession
- exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

This can also occur via pictures and is a common danger in TV.  It can be through the careless use of a background, shots with voice over can be defamatory.  People or companies must not be identifiable in certain contexts e.g. child abuse and fraud.  'Imprecise' shots make it unclear who the suspect is, or which house is being spoken about, especially when it is terraced or attached to another house.


Reputation is vital to somebody who lives in public life, but also someone who has money. 

Inference
When reporting something, it should be written to be interpreted by the 'reasonable man' .  It is not necessary according to how the person who wrote the piece wanted it to mean, or to extreme views of others, but that of what a reasonable person would take it to mean. 

Innuendo
Is just as big a hazard as inference and this is where a hidden meaning in the report is clear to ones who have a particular knowledge.  The example of Lord Gowrie in 1986, who after the use of 'snort' in a question of what 'expensive habits' he was unable to support on his former income, sued for the creation of the innuendo that he took illegal drugs, in particular cocaine.  He received 'substantial damages'.

Bane and Antidote
The context of a report may remove a defamatory meaning.  In the instance of Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995], although actors' heads were super-imposed on porn stars in a picture (something defamatory), it was seen from the text, that the newspaper was reporting a game where this was actually happening (without the actors' knowledge).  The House of Lords applied this rule, saying that most people who read past the first paragraph would realise the report not to be defamatory.

As a journalist, it is important to realise that someone's reputation is key - if they have a lot to lose, they are more likely to sue, so BEWARE!


Libel Defences
- Justification - it is true and can be proven in court.
- Fair comment - honestly held opinion based upon facts, or privileged material, in the public interest.
- Absolute privilege - court reporting.
- Qualified privilege - police quotes, pressers.


Other Defences
- Banes and Antidote - defamatory removed by context (see above).
- Apologies and clarifications - the speed you respond by makes a difference too.
- Reynolds Defence
    - Material must be:
                               In the public interest, a product of 'responsible journalism' (more in favour of BBC).




No Defence
There is no defence for you against defamatory or libel when you:
- haven't checked your facts.
- haven't 'referred up' - you haven't flagged it up to someone.
- haven't put yourself in the shoes of the person or company you write about.
- have got carried away by a 'spicy' story.
- haven't bothered to wait for a lawyer's opinion.

**If there is the option between leaving something out (whilst waiting for the lawyer) or putting it in before the deadline, LEAVE IT OUT**



KEY QUESTIONS
Who am I writing about, could they sue?
Is what I'm writing potentially defamatory?
Do I have a defence? Am I covered?

REMEMBER - Lawyers never mind being asked!