Media Law- Libel and Defamation.

'Law exists to protect the moral and professional reputation of the individual from unfair attack'.
My understanding of Defamation is a false statement of published or spoken facts about a person, company or organisation. It can lower their reputation or make other people think less of them without justification. 

The following examples show how reputation can be lowered and therefore, when a statement becomes defamatory.

• Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
• Causes them to be shunned or avoided
• Discredits them in their trade, business or profession 
• Generally lowers them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society

Journalists have to be extra careful with their statements, as they can be sued for anything that can’t be proved. For example, if a publisher tells a story about a person who is a liar or a cheat or in financial difficulties, the statement can easily be considered as libel unless the publisher has a defence, such as evidence.

Another ‘tricky’ thing that Journalists have to take special care of is words that carry more than one meaning. (English can complicate your life sometimes!). There are statements such as Inferences, which can be read/understood by someone in a wrong way. They have secondary meanings, a person could read them ‘between the lines’ and then can make a wrong conclusion.

The statement, however, can be protected by defence in libel law. A claimant has to show the court three tings when suing for libel:

1. The publication is defamatory,
2. A defamed person has been identified
3. It has been published to a third party.

It is quite similar to Slander, which is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It requires defamation and identification but NO publication to a third party. For example, it can be seen as a form of conversation.

Journalists need to remember that the defamed person doesn’t have to prove that the statement is false. If it is defamatory then it is obvious that the statement is false, however if the journalist can prove their facts than that’s their evidence, therefore, defence. The defamed person doesn’t have to prove intention or any proof of actual damage. All they need to do is to show the false statement.

There are four main defences that journalists can use:

1. Justification- The defamed person needs to prove that defamatory statement identifies them. On the other hand, the publisher needs to prove that the publish statement is true, by using essential evidence.

2. Fair comment- A statement has to be an honest opinion based on fact. No malice should be included. The subject commented on must be a matter of public interests.

3. Absolute privilege – It’s a complete answer and bar to any action and defamation. It doesn’t matter whether the words were true or false, or spoken maliciously.

4. Qualified Privilege- which is a specific protection against an action of defamation given in the first place to judges, lawyers, and witnesses in court cases. It is also a defence where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest.

There are a few situations where defence cannot be used. This is when reporters:

• Haven’t checked their facts,
• Haven’t ‘referred up’,
• Haven’t put themselves in the shoes of the person or company they write about,
• Got carried away by an exciting story
• Haven’t bothered to wait for their lawyer’s opinion.  

This is a lot of rough notes and definitions, but they are one of the most important law rules that a journalist needs to know in order to be able to report and never be sued.

McNae’s- The essential law for journalists helped me write up these notes.