Defamation and Libel - "What did you say about me!?"

Libel and Defamation are a problem that a journalist faces everyday, whether it be in print broadcast or even just reporting the courts.
Libel is all to do with damaging the reputation of members of society. Everyone has a reputation in the eyes of the people that know them. Celebrities and people who hold a public office even more so. In many cases these reputations (good) are worth a lot of money. If a journalist comes along and completely rips that reputation apart with no good reason to do so (public interest) then that person can sue for libel. It is important to recognise that it doesn't have to be proved that the reputation was ACTUALLY ruined, it only has to be proved that the reputation COULD HAVE been ruined for a libel case to be successful.
A journalist becomes libel through publication identification and defamation. This means that a defamatory comment must be published with a clear identification of who the comment has been made about. a comment that can be seen to be defamatory. A comment becomes defamatory when a reasonable man thinks the statement 'tends' to -

+ Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.
+ Cause someone to be shunned or avoided.
+ Disparage someone in their trade, office or profession.
+ Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

There are so many examples of cases for defamation and libel because in a journalist's life it is such a common occurance. A big case that highlights defamation or libel in journalism is:

Rahamin vs. Channel 4/ITN

In July 1998 channel 4 broadcast a major news report on the 7o’clock news that made allegations against locum consultant Joseph Rahamin that he maintained were completely untrue and defamatory as they damaged both his personal and professional reputations. The accusations made on the broadcast were that:

1. First that Mr. Rahamim was probably responsible for the death or serious injury of many of his patients including two who had died during their operations.
2. Secondly that Mr Rahamim was not competent to practice as a consultant thoracic surgeon and that he was seriously under qualified and inadequately trained.
3. Thirdly that he had fraudulently obtained his post as a Consultant by misrepresenting his qualifications and employment history.
4. Fourthly that Mr. Rahamim had dishonestly sent out letters to local GP’s in which he had falsely described himself as an FRCS
5. Fifthly that he had dishonestly concealed from his employers the fact that as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident he was unable to operate safely and
6. Lastly that by reason of these matters the GMC ought to have Mr. Rahamim struck off.

As a result of this broadcast Mr. Rahamim was subjected to a thorough investigation both by the Plymouth NHS Trust and a Government appointed independant enquiry which would automatically damage (or be seen to damage) his professional reputation as a medical consultant. But these confirmed that there was no reason to question his fitness to practice as a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon.
Shortly after the Channel 4 broadcast ITN published these same allegations on their news archive website under the heading "Bogus Doctor." Regrettably the allegations resurfaced in a programme entitled "Great Frauds" which was broadcast overseas where it was seen by relatives and friends of Mr. Rahamim. They were also distributed in this country in the form of a video and DVD, all of which greatly damaged his personal relationship and COULD have subjected him to hatred.
Mr. Rahamin won £1 million in damages as the allegations were wholly defamatory.


A more recent account of defamation that may make it clearer for young 'budding journalists' BBC news recently reported on solicitors in Cardiff taking defamatory cases arising because of the social networking site 'facebook.' It was stated in the report that anyone can be a publisher as once something is written down on facebook it is accessible by millions of people.
One example given in the story was of a woman who worked with children. Someone who she wasn't friends with wrote on her 'wall' making allegations of violence about her. This lead to an investigation of her by her employer which can be seen to damage her professional reputation or could expose her to hatred.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11610510

Something to remember when talking about the internet is that once something is published it can be passed on downloaded over and over again until it doesn't even matter if the sourse of the defamatory comment is removed. It is essentially there forever.

Even if it isn't an outright allegation that someone has made journalist also face subtle hazards that could land them face first in libel. Other things that journalist should beware of are innuendoes, inferences and defamation in pictures (wallpapering). Innuendoes in defamation can occur when a statement 'hints' at a defamatory suggestion that only people involved with the matter or knowledge would understand. Inferences in defamation are made when there is a secondary meaning behind the initial statement that is made.
Defamation in pictures is a big problem in television. If a picture of someone who can be clearly identified, for instance by strapline, is incorrectly paired with a voiceover to a story about a peadophile then it could be taken that that person is the accused peadophile - thus damaging their reputation. Once it is broadcasted it is technically a publication. This is commonly known as juxtaposition defamation, or puzzle defamation.

There ARE defences against libel cases. But you can only use these under certain circumstances.

Justification - The allegations made by the defendant against the claimant are true, and can be proved to be true in court. The standard of proof is that of civil law - on the balance of probabilities. It is solely the defendants responsibilty to prove that the allegations made are true, NOT the claimants.

Fair comment - It must be proved to be an honest opinion based on fact. It also must be on a matter that is regarded as 'public interest'

Privilege - Absolute privilege is only enjoyed by journalists when court reporting. Even then a report must be fast (as it happens) accurate (word for word of the judicial proceedings) and fair (a fair representation not prejudice) if any of these cannot be found then a journalist loses this privilege.
- Qualified privilege is a little more simple. It applies to ares of public interest. If knowledge published is deemed to be in the interest of the public to know then it is a journalists responsibilty to make it known as 'the eyes and ears' of the general public.

Reynolds defence
The defence was raised in the case Reynolds vs. Times Newspaper where it was found that a journalist could not be sued if it was found that they had a duty to publish an allegation even if it is wrong.
The reynolds defence will be judged against TEN criteria:

1.The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2.The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3.The source of the 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.The steps taken to verify the information.
5.The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6.The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7.Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8.Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9.The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10.The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

A journalist should always be aware when publishing material of the risk that may be around. They should always check with the editor as they are the absolute. Only then when they have checked and double checked the facts can they have the rights to the defence.