Geoff Hill, the editor of Channel 5 news is coming in to be our guest editor for WINOL tomorrow and he kindly asked us to 'debrief' his 5 o'clock bulletin, the same way that he will debrief our bulletin tomorrow.
So without further ado, the bulletin started with the presenter in vision before going to the top story headline, floods. The floods got a really rather large amount of coverage considering the bulletin is only about 22 minutes long, but we'll come to that later. The quote from David Cameron in the heads was rather weak but I understand why it was used. We've had a lot of trouble over the last few weeks ourselves with using upsot in the heads just for the sake of using it, sometimes ending up with an unnecessary quote. Having Cameron on location at the floods though makes using him an absolute necessity.
We had the opening graphic after that which was a little jarring to some of us since we tend to run the graphic before our headlines; it does help to break things up though and the opening graphic is a hell of a lot nicer than ours. It wouldn't hurt our programme to have a team dedicated to that kind of thing, it really shows how useful having a graphics team is later on in the 5 news bulletin.
The next headlines were about the Noro Virus, Nadine "I'm an MP get me out of here" Dorries, the funeral of an actor in Coronation Street and the announcement of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. Based on Channel 5s other programming it is easy to see why rather tabloid stories such as Nadine Dorries and the Corrie star were covered in the way they were. The grab from Chris Hoy was odd and I'm assuming the freeze and style of "find out what they had to say" is an editorial choice that is used regularly.
I quite liked the set which sadly we don't have the luxury of (yet!), the second years will do in our lovely new studio though. But I wasn't sure about having the presenter standing throughout the whole bulletin. The convention I've seen in a lot of news is standing during headlines and seated behind a desk for the actual bulletin, something we've tried to replicate but again, the lack of a set makes it look odd.
The bulletin then went into its first story which was arguably its second story as well with two live OBs to reporters on location. It's always really good to get a live OB and especially in a story like this where it really matters about having people on location for updates. With our team it's often difficult to do that and we were, without putting it strongly at all, extremely disappointed not to get our OB from the student demonstrations in London last week, something that would be inexcusable on a national news broadcast. I liked the map graphic in the first flood package; some people I talked to thought it went on a little too long but I think with the information it was pitched about right and helped to illustrate a story where the pictures will be very good but very samey. My favourite part of the package though was the lovely bit of natsot at the end; it was the perfect way to end it and from a production point of view an absolute godsend as it means you can make sure there are no black holes when cutting from the VT to the presenter. The second flood VT however was possibly unnecessary. It's great to hear from reporters across the country but whilst the reports had slightly different focuses, I can't help feeling that the stories could have been combined. The footage from the RNLI was a nice touch though as it helped the package feel vital and current and the leisure centre vox pops were well pitched; having real people comment on this story when it is about real people is the most important thing. I did find the interviews a little odd however as the reporter was still very much in shot, or at least the back of her head was, and presumably this was a stylistic point as it was a recurring feature throughout the bulletin. Something I think I liked but did at first amuse me was the interview with the man, still in his house, leaning out of the window. It was quite jarring visually at first but how else would you have filmed it? Would you have gone tighter and been accused of TV fakery since it would have appeared that he was on the ground floor? It did help give that sense of people being trapped in their own homes though and that set the right tone for the package.
On a separate note, I couldn't quite work out if the bulletin was being filmed on a full set with a screen behind it, or whether it was a green-screen with the strange desk type thing protruding from the floor.
Regardless, the next story was the return of our favourite winter illness, the noro virus. It comes around every year and nobody is particularly surprised so having it is a bit of a non-story; it sort of has to be covered though although the slightly eerie music made it seem more like a plague rather than a sickness bug. I've had the noro virus a couple of years ago, just after Christmas actually and whilst it was horrible, the only real side effect was not being able to eat ALL of the mince pies in the world. Again the reporter was in shot during the interview which I addressed above but the graphic this time, whilst well done, was a little hard to take in. It was very number heavy graphic and I actually found it rather hard to take in all the information and I couldn't tell you what any of the statistics were now. It was similar with the Eon power OOV. I know it was something about paying compensation but I can't for the life of me remember anything about the story, it wasn't visually interesting so I just switched off. Unfortunately this is often the case with OOVs as they are the bottom feeders of news. If a story fails, it becomes an OOV and so that may reflect why the pictures were dull.
Nadine Dorries was next and it was a rather odd story all round. First of all, the fact that Dorries was even in the 'celebrity jungle' is weird but then the story was essentially her coming home to see if she would still have a job as an MP but didn't really have any footage of her. A few pictures were used but it cut to the political editor for comment that didn't add much. We were told that Nadine Dorries was in a part of Westminster that didn't allow cameras; well why didn't we see her in a bit that did? It seemed like covering the story for the sake of covering it. If it hasn't got pictures then should it go in? It is quite often the same dilemma we face on WINOL with our news editor agonising over a story that isn't visually interesting but is important. It's rather comforting to know that the professionals face similar problems to us. We must be doing something right.
It was great to see a 'coming up' as it is something we've been trying to implement over the last few weeks with varying degrees of success. Also, on Channel 5 you have the perfect place to put your coming up, just before the adverts. I did find it a little odd though that coming out of the adverts we were reminded of the floods but nothing new was really added. I know the BBC sometimes repeats their headlines in the same slot as the coming up was played so it is a convention and obviously coming out of the adverts it might be necessary to remind viewers of what's gone, something we fortunately don't have to worry about.
The Yasser Arafat story was well dealt with considering it had to be mostly archive footage. They were the only interviews as well not to feature the back of the reporter's head so why didn't we go a bit closer on the interviewee's faces? It might just be my own personal preference. The Coronation Street star funeral was a little oddly pitched; obviously it is aimed at the Channel 5 audience but I think despite the person's celebrity status, it felt strange to be sort of intruding into people's grief.
It was nice to break up the show again with another OOV and the pictures were pretty great so anyone not interested in Corrie actors no longer with us would have been suitably woken up by a burning crane. I certainly was.
And finally (see what I did there?) we had the BBC Sports Personality of the Year (SPOTY) package which I really enjoyed as the vox pops helped make it the light story it is. Nobody, well it's unlikely anyway, will get angry about the SPOTY awards so the tone was about right for a piece like this. It was a little odd though considering I don't think we saw the face of the reporter that we had the back of their head again. It made it look like we weren't allowed to see their face. It might not have registered on an audience that wasn't full of aspiring journos.
Overall though it was a very enjoyable broadcast and as a person who is traditionally a BBC News viewer it is interesting to see 'how the other half live' so to speak. I look forward to hearing what Geoff has to say about our bulletin tomorrow.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Tuesday 27 November 2012
Saturday 24 November 2012
Reporting Elections
In our most recent law lecture we took the time to look at reporting elections, not always necessarily a story in itself but we're performing a public duty as the press in reporting on them. Who guards the guardians? We do. The profession of journalism has often been referred to as 'The Fourth Estate'. This really means that we're here to make sure those who are meant to be in charge and who are meant to be looking after us and our interests really are doing that. Arguably that raises the question of who do we report to, who watches the watchmen? I think that is an especially interesting point with the shadow of Leveson looming large with his report due this coming week.
During elections the issue of impartiality is very important; the difference between comment and straight reporting must be crystal clear. This is really a guideline for broadcast journalism though. The BBC and the like have to give the same amount of time or thereabouts to each political party in the running, in fact during the lecture it was pointed out to us by Ian who is a BBC man that they will have a record of which parties have been on what channels and for how long. This isn't the same for newspapers though who have the freedom to be completely biased in their reporting. The Sun shows us how important newspaper support can be in elections as it flip-flops from Conservative to Labour and now back again. The most famous example was its denouncement of Neil Kinnock in this famous front page. They even gave themselves a pat on the back after the Tories were voted in that year, saying "It's the Sun wot won it." Grammatically incorrect? Definitely. Factually correct? Possibly. There will often be editorial choices in broadcast media on who gets the main focus; in fact in the packages we watched about Corby not all parties got soundbites, just the main parties. But if you don't balance things and campaigns start to turn sour then who will the parties go for? Well it would be us journos. At election time there is fantastic scrutiny on us as journalists but we also wield great power.
The hard truths about reporting during elections are as follows. Citizens will base their voting choices on your reporting; it's a simple fact but important to remember since your words can change elections, bring down politicians, end governments. Accuracy and impartiality are even more important than usual during elections, they are totally and utterly vital because making a factual error at a time so sensitive could change the course of a campaign and would almost certainly end your career. Something like that would not be good at any time but during elections everything is a little bit more on edge. Another hard truth is that politicians love to shoot the messenger; I shouldn't need to explain this really but politicians need us like a hole in the head but if they can use us to their advantage they will. Going after journos seems pretty popular at the moment and would be even more so if it was election time. The final thing to remember is that campaign language can often become rather 'heated' as it were so there might be some untruths in what politicians will be saying. I don't mean that they'll just be going round lying but it would be a good idea to check what the facts are on what politicians say about their opponents before reporting it and getting in trouble ourselves. That's one of the danger areas of reporting on elections; if we were to report others statements for example we could get in to a lot of trouble, one case that came up in the lecture was that of Phil Woolas, the former Labour MP who ran this campaign against his Lib Dem rival. Reporting that as fact would have got us journalists into a lot of trouble; about as much trouble as Phil Woolas got himself in and you can read more about that in this article here.
An odd thing that I didn't know anything about before the lecture was that journalists can't report on opinion polls or exit polls once the election is underway. Now I know this it seems pretty obvious to me that it would be bad. I mean think of the consequences of reporting that Labour are currently ahead based on exit polls on the day of a general election. Would this make people who would normally vote Labour less likely to go out and vote, thinking they already had the victory sewn up? Or would it influence Tory voters or Lib Dem voters to get out and vote when they weren't sure whether to vote before, swinging the election their way. How reliable can these polls be anyway? You might find yourself reporting all sorts of things that have no real basis in fact.
All of this came to a head for me really with WINOL's work on the HPCC debate we put on. For those of you that aren't aware, my course hosted a debate with all six candidates for the position of Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, a post that was new and was being covered in lots of places where other elections were also taking place. In the build up our political editor, as I'm sure he likes to be known, was running profiles on each candidate, building up balance over time as he wasn't afforded the time to have what would have been something like a two and a half minute package which would not fit in a standard WINOL bulletin. He had to be very careful about how much time was afforded to each candidate as he would be the one blamed if the campaign turned sour (see above). You can see all of our coverage of the HPCC elections around and about on the WINOL website here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
During elections the issue of impartiality is very important; the difference between comment and straight reporting must be crystal clear. This is really a guideline for broadcast journalism though. The BBC and the like have to give the same amount of time or thereabouts to each political party in the running, in fact during the lecture it was pointed out to us by Ian who is a BBC man that they will have a record of which parties have been on what channels and for how long. This isn't the same for newspapers though who have the freedom to be completely biased in their reporting. The Sun shows us how important newspaper support can be in elections as it flip-flops from Conservative to Labour and now back again. The most famous example was its denouncement of Neil Kinnock in this famous front page. They even gave themselves a pat on the back after the Tories were voted in that year, saying "It's the Sun wot won it." Grammatically incorrect? Definitely. Factually correct? Possibly. There will often be editorial choices in broadcast media on who gets the main focus; in fact in the packages we watched about Corby not all parties got soundbites, just the main parties. But if you don't balance things and campaigns start to turn sour then who will the parties go for? Well it would be us journos. At election time there is fantastic scrutiny on us as journalists but we also wield great power.
The hard truths about reporting during elections are as follows. Citizens will base their voting choices on your reporting; it's a simple fact but important to remember since your words can change elections, bring down politicians, end governments. Accuracy and impartiality are even more important than usual during elections, they are totally and utterly vital because making a factual error at a time so sensitive could change the course of a campaign and would almost certainly end your career. Something like that would not be good at any time but during elections everything is a little bit more on edge. Another hard truth is that politicians love to shoot the messenger; I shouldn't need to explain this really but politicians need us like a hole in the head but if they can use us to their advantage they will. Going after journos seems pretty popular at the moment and would be even more so if it was election time. The final thing to remember is that campaign language can often become rather 'heated' as it were so there might be some untruths in what politicians will be saying. I don't mean that they'll just be going round lying but it would be a good idea to check what the facts are on what politicians say about their opponents before reporting it and getting in trouble ourselves. That's one of the danger areas of reporting on elections; if we were to report others statements for example we could get in to a lot of trouble, one case that came up in the lecture was that of Phil Woolas, the former Labour MP who ran this campaign against his Lib Dem rival. Reporting that as fact would have got us journalists into a lot of trouble; about as much trouble as Phil Woolas got himself in and you can read more about that in this article here.
An odd thing that I didn't know anything about before the lecture was that journalists can't report on opinion polls or exit polls once the election is underway. Now I know this it seems pretty obvious to me that it would be bad. I mean think of the consequences of reporting that Labour are currently ahead based on exit polls on the day of a general election. Would this make people who would normally vote Labour less likely to go out and vote, thinking they already had the victory sewn up? Or would it influence Tory voters or Lib Dem voters to get out and vote when they weren't sure whether to vote before, swinging the election their way. How reliable can these polls be anyway? You might find yourself reporting all sorts of things that have no real basis in fact.
All of this came to a head for me really with WINOL's work on the HPCC debate we put on. For those of you that aren't aware, my course hosted a debate with all six candidates for the position of Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, a post that was new and was being covered in lots of places where other elections were also taking place. In the build up our political editor, as I'm sure he likes to be known, was running profiles on each candidate, building up balance over time as he wasn't afforded the time to have what would have been something like a two and a half minute package which would not fit in a standard WINOL bulletin. He had to be very careful about how much time was afforded to each candidate as he would be the one blamed if the campaign turned sour (see above). You can see all of our coverage of the HPCC elections around and about on the WINOL website here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday 11 November 2012
Courting Controversy
I didn't blog last week and if by some strange quirk you are a regular follower of my blog then you may wonder why. Well the reasons are twofold; we put on our huge Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Debate, which I took part in on the day of last week's lecture, and also the last two weeks of lectures were on court reporting so I felt it would be beneficial to just put my thoughts on both lectures in to one single, easy to digest blog.
When talking about court reporting, the most important thing to remember in my opinion is privilege. There are a few other situations where privilege comes into effect, the House of Commons for example, but it is most commonly used in court. What privilege allows journalists to do is write and publish or broadcast material which may be defamatory or untrue, simply because it is said in court. We have protection in reporting these things as long as, yep, you guessed it; we are FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR. People in court have what is known as ABSOLUTE privilege but journalists only have QUALIFIED privilege (QP) in reporting on them. Your reports need to be fair, accurate, without malice and on a matter of public concern for QP to come into effect. It is the same rule for reporting on the House of Commons where as long as your report follows the regulations for QP then you can report anything said by MPs in the Commons. This is the way that recently many injunctions and super injunctions have been broken with MPs naming and in some cases shaming those with injunctions so that the paper can break the story without fear of reprimand. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming was famous around the time of the Ryan Giggs super injunction, calling injunctions an "affront to democracy," and breaking a few using his absolute privilege in parliament. You can read a comment piece here about how that process works and the worries parliament have about this kind of conduct and you can read about how the Ryan Giggs story broke using several links; here, here and here. It's interesting to see there one of my mini blogs from a long time ago with a mention of another sports star with a super injunction who I'm not sure we ever found out about.
Qualified privilege has two levels: with or 'subject to' explanation or contradiction and 'without' explanation or contradiction. It is also subject to the Reynolds Test, the 10 point test which I listed and went through in my last blog. There are a few other events covered by privilege, pressers and public meetings are covered but again, only if they follow the rules for obtaining QP. Written handouts are also covered according to the lecture. This is something I'd never heard before and it made me wonder whether that defence would also stretch to a press release. Say for example you receive a press release from an outspoken, right wing, extremist group about a demonstration and you report what they have to say. As long as you give a balanced report, giving the other side a chance to respond and that your report is accurate and without malice; would it be legally safe? I genuinely don't know so a little more research is needed and perhaps an update to this blog will be in order. Stay tuned. It is also worth thinking about the risks of live broadcast when it comes to privilege. What can you broadcast when you're filming something live which is protected by privilege? We had to deal with this ourselves recently with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate mentioned above. We were streaming the event live to the world (although more likely a few people in Hampshire and my mum) and so anything the candidates said would be transmitted to the world whether it was defamatory or not. Was that safe legally? Well it was a public debate but it was up to us as to whether there was balance or not. Fortunately the candidates were very well behaved on that front and we were lucky but it is good to show we have thought about this kind of issue.
I'm planning to update this blog with a few more thoughts and examples but if you feel you haven't learnt enough about court reporting you can see my first year blog here and my trip to the court from around that time (don't worry, I wasn't IN court, just visiting) can be read here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
When talking about court reporting, the most important thing to remember in my opinion is privilege. There are a few other situations where privilege comes into effect, the House of Commons for example, but it is most commonly used in court. What privilege allows journalists to do is write and publish or broadcast material which may be defamatory or untrue, simply because it is said in court. We have protection in reporting these things as long as, yep, you guessed it; we are FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR. People in court have what is known as ABSOLUTE privilege but journalists only have QUALIFIED privilege (QP) in reporting on them. Your reports need to be fair, accurate, without malice and on a matter of public concern for QP to come into effect. It is the same rule for reporting on the House of Commons where as long as your report follows the regulations for QP then you can report anything said by MPs in the Commons. This is the way that recently many injunctions and super injunctions have been broken with MPs naming and in some cases shaming those with injunctions so that the paper can break the story without fear of reprimand. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming was famous around the time of the Ryan Giggs super injunction, calling injunctions an "affront to democracy," and breaking a few using his absolute privilege in parliament. You can read a comment piece here about how that process works and the worries parliament have about this kind of conduct and you can read about how the Ryan Giggs story broke using several links; here, here and here. It's interesting to see there one of my mini blogs from a long time ago with a mention of another sports star with a super injunction who I'm not sure we ever found out about.
Qualified privilege has two levels: with or 'subject to' explanation or contradiction and 'without' explanation or contradiction. It is also subject to the Reynolds Test, the 10 point test which I listed and went through in my last blog. There are a few other events covered by privilege, pressers and public meetings are covered but again, only if they follow the rules for obtaining QP. Written handouts are also covered according to the lecture. This is something I'd never heard before and it made me wonder whether that defence would also stretch to a press release. Say for example you receive a press release from an outspoken, right wing, extremist group about a demonstration and you report what they have to say. As long as you give a balanced report, giving the other side a chance to respond and that your report is accurate and without malice; would it be legally safe? I genuinely don't know so a little more research is needed and perhaps an update to this blog will be in order. Stay tuned. It is also worth thinking about the risks of live broadcast when it comes to privilege. What can you broadcast when you're filming something live which is protected by privilege? We had to deal with this ourselves recently with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate mentioned above. We were streaming the event live to the world (although more likely a few people in Hampshire and my mum) and so anything the candidates said would be transmitted to the world whether it was defamatory or not. Was that safe legally? Well it was a public debate but it was up to us as to whether there was balance or not. Fortunately the candidates were very well behaved on that front and we were lucky but it is good to show we have thought about this kind of issue.
I'm planning to update this blog with a few more thoughts and examples but if you feel you haven't learnt enough about court reporting you can see my first year blog here and my trip to the court from around that time (don't worry, I wasn't IN court, just visiting) can be read here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday 4 November 2012
Defamation, Defamation, Defamation
Hosted by Kirstie Allsop for Channel 4.
Yeah, not really though. Defamation is essentially the legal term for saying bad things about a person. I've rather oversimplified things there but there is a simple bullet point way of defining defamation, and guess what? Here are the bullet points now!!
If what you write or broadcast about someone or a company 'tends to...'
Fortunately there are some defences you can apply when it comes to libel. The best defence you can have for libel is justification. Justification is simply that your statement is true and you can prove it in court (beyond reasonable doubt etc). The second is fair comment which is technically defined as an honestly held opinion based upon facts or privileged material which is in the public interest (check back to last weeks lecture for the PCC definition of public interest). One of the most solid defences though is absolute privilege which is based on your notes from court reporting mostly; if a judge says something in court and you report it word for word using your shorthand notes and it is FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR as it should always be then you can report any statements made, even if they are highly defamatory. The fun legal loophole here though is that you cannot defame a dead person. I can call any dead person I want anything I want and be completely safe legally. Yay for loopholes!
Defamation cases can often become quite famous as the cases rumble on, for example the Max Mosley case has rumbled on for so long, it's no longer about defamation (because it turned out for the most part to be true), it's now a case of privacy. One of the best (depending on your perspective) cases of defamation in recent times was the Chris Jefferies case. OK so I've definitely mentioned it before but it's because it really has changed things in journalism and in defamation law. Chris Jefferies was the landlord of Joanna Yates who went missing in 2010 later to be found dead which put Jefferies at the centre of a murder enquiry. Nothing wrong with that so far (except the murdering obviously) but what did go wrong next was the fact that newspapers reported Jefferies arrest as if he was definitely the murderer, simply because he looked a little eccentric. It eventually transpired that the murderer was a man named Vincent Tabak and the newspapers did a lot of backtracking, a lot of apologising and a little paying of substantial damages. The reason though that the papers jumping to these conclusions was so bad is that it could have caused serious problems in court. Had Jefferies gone to trial it would have been near impossible to find an unbiased jury who didn't already assume he was the murderer from the character assassination he was facing from the papers.
While that was one case of defamation where an out and out nasty thing was actually said of a person, that isn't the only way to defame a person. You can defame someone simply with the pictures you use in a package with the careless use of a voiceover. So for example in a story about football hooliganism a panning GV of the crowd with a voiceover like, "The (insert your clubs rival team) fans then took to the pitch and wrecked the goals, causing havoc," would be defamatory to the people in that shot as they might be completely innocent bystanders who just happened to be in your GV. The most likely explanation for something like this would be a story has broken and the only footage a reporter has is GVs of the previous weeks game; notice I said explanation rather than excuse as there is no excuse for that kind of mistake, you can and will be sued. The newspaper version of this is juxtaposition libel which can happen when a headline relating to one story saying, I dunno, "serial murderer finally captured," is put slap bang next to a picture from another story, leading the reader to assume the two are connected and therefore it libels the person in the picture. I've been doing a bit of reading and it appears the first case of juxtaposition libel involved a certain Madame Tussaud. Now you wouldn't think waxworks could cause much of a problem but in a blog from an old WINOL-ite you can read all about it
Finally I want to give a brief mention to the Reynolds defence. The points that make it up are as follows, laid down by Lord Nicholls during the Reynolds vs Times Newspaper case:
1. Seriousness of allegation - The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. Nature of information - The extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3. Source of information - Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. Steps taken to verify the information - It is always important to check whether the information is true.
5. Status of the information - The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6 . The urgency of the matter - Is the news perishable? Courts must take in to account the need of journalists to work and publish quickly.
7. Whether comment was sought from claimant - The person who is defamed may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant is not always necessary.
8. Whether the articles contained the gist of the claimant side of the story - the journalism must be fair.
9. Tone of the article - A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation but need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. Circumstances of the publication - Is the story really so urgent that it had to be published when it was.
I've talked a lot about defences but what about the times when you can have no defence? You can have absolutely no defence when you have not checked the facts, when you have not 'referred up', when you have not put yourself in the shoes of the person or company you are writing about, when you have got carried away by a spicy story, when you have not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion. On WINOL the system works like this; if a news reporter doesn't show the news editor their package before it goes in to the bulletin or includes something the news editor hasn't seen then it is their fault, if the news editor sees it and defamatory material still goes in then it is their fault, if it is a particularly complicated issue then the editor may be called in until eventually it may go all the way to a lecturer who will pass final judgement on the most legally delicate stories. As always though, recognise the risk.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Yeah, not really though. Defamation is essentially the legal term for saying bad things about a person. I've rather oversimplified things there but there is a simple bullet point way of defining defamation, and guess what? Here are the bullet points now!!
If what you write or broadcast about someone or a company 'tends to...'
- Lower them in the estimation of right thinking-people.
- Causes them to be shunned or avoided.
- Disparages them in their business, trade or profession.
- Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Fortunately there are some defences you can apply when it comes to libel. The best defence you can have for libel is justification. Justification is simply that your statement is true and you can prove it in court (beyond reasonable doubt etc). The second is fair comment which is technically defined as an honestly held opinion based upon facts or privileged material which is in the public interest (check back to last weeks lecture for the PCC definition of public interest). One of the most solid defences though is absolute privilege which is based on your notes from court reporting mostly; if a judge says something in court and you report it word for word using your shorthand notes and it is FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR as it should always be then you can report any statements made, even if they are highly defamatory. The fun legal loophole here though is that you cannot defame a dead person. I can call any dead person I want anything I want and be completely safe legally. Yay for loopholes!
Defamation cases can often become quite famous as the cases rumble on, for example the Max Mosley case has rumbled on for so long, it's no longer about defamation (because it turned out for the most part to be true), it's now a case of privacy. One of the best (depending on your perspective) cases of defamation in recent times was the Chris Jefferies case. OK so I've definitely mentioned it before but it's because it really has changed things in journalism and in defamation law. Chris Jefferies was the landlord of Joanna Yates who went missing in 2010 later to be found dead which put Jefferies at the centre of a murder enquiry. Nothing wrong with that so far (except the murdering obviously) but what did go wrong next was the fact that newspapers reported Jefferies arrest as if he was definitely the murderer, simply because he looked a little eccentric. It eventually transpired that the murderer was a man named Vincent Tabak and the newspapers did a lot of backtracking, a lot of apologising and a little paying of substantial damages. The reason though that the papers jumping to these conclusions was so bad is that it could have caused serious problems in court. Had Jefferies gone to trial it would have been near impossible to find an unbiased jury who didn't already assume he was the murderer from the character assassination he was facing from the papers.
While that was one case of defamation where an out and out nasty thing was actually said of a person, that isn't the only way to defame a person. You can defame someone simply with the pictures you use in a package with the careless use of a voiceover. So for example in a story about football hooliganism a panning GV of the crowd with a voiceover like, "The (insert your clubs rival team) fans then took to the pitch and wrecked the goals, causing havoc," would be defamatory to the people in that shot as they might be completely innocent bystanders who just happened to be in your GV. The most likely explanation for something like this would be a story has broken and the only footage a reporter has is GVs of the previous weeks game; notice I said explanation rather than excuse as there is no excuse for that kind of mistake, you can and will be sued. The newspaper version of this is juxtaposition libel which can happen when a headline relating to one story saying, I dunno, "serial murderer finally captured," is put slap bang next to a picture from another story, leading the reader to assume the two are connected and therefore it libels the person in the picture. I've been doing a bit of reading and it appears the first case of juxtaposition libel involved a certain Madame Tussaud. Now you wouldn't think waxworks could cause much of a problem but in a blog from an old WINOL-ite you can read all about it
Finally I want to give a brief mention to the Reynolds defence. The points that make it up are as follows, laid down by Lord Nicholls during the Reynolds vs Times Newspaper case:
1. Seriousness of allegation - The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. Nature of information - The extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3. Source of information - Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. Steps taken to verify the information - It is always important to check whether the information is true.
5. Status of the information - The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6 . The urgency of the matter - Is the news perishable? Courts must take in to account the need of journalists to work and publish quickly.
7. Whether comment was sought from claimant - The person who is defamed may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant is not always necessary.
8. Whether the articles contained the gist of the claimant side of the story - the journalism must be fair.
9. Tone of the article - A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation but need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. Circumstances of the publication - Is the story really so urgent that it had to be published when it was.
I've talked a lot about defences but what about the times when you can have no defence? You can have absolutely no defence when you have not checked the facts, when you have not 'referred up', when you have not put yourself in the shoes of the person or company you are writing about, when you have got carried away by a spicy story, when you have not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion. On WINOL the system works like this; if a news reporter doesn't show the news editor their package before it goes in to the bulletin or includes something the news editor hasn't seen then it is their fault, if the news editor sees it and defamatory material still goes in then it is their fault, if it is a particularly complicated issue then the editor may be called in until eventually it may go all the way to a lecturer who will pass final judgement on the most legally delicate stories. As always though, recognise the risk.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)