Media Law and Ethics: Defences

Despite Defenses being one of the briefer areas discussed in Mcnae's Essential Law For Journalists, let that take nothing away from it's significance and importance in Journalism law.

As with other lectures, we were given a written task, which depicted a situation that could cause controversy (i.e. libel) in being published. The task was to study a series of quotes with regard to the topic of the planning permission for wind turbines, and decide which quotes were safe to run and what sort of privilege protected us Journalists.

Here is an example of one of the quotes which gives balance and fair comment (defence) about the erection of the wind turbines:

'Mr Wagstaff isn't at the meeting, but one of his employees Geoff Salt is. He says: "I'm no expert on green energy, but Mr Wagtaff has told me that without the income form the turbines, he might have to pack it in, and I'll be on the dole. So I think it's a good idea."' Including this quote gives balance, as such a quote defends Mr Wagstaff, who is under attack form other people, with regards to him putting up the wind turbines. This would be an essential quote to include in any article publication as it would stop the article being one-sided.

An example of a quote which should only be included in an article after being deemed safe was: 'After the meeting has ended, Mr Eagle comes up to you and says: "The truth is that Wagstaff was black-balled by the committee last year and this is his revenge. Not a lot I can say, but many of us think he was routinely handing in falsified cards. Never settled his bar bill either. Not our sort at."' Using this quote could prove very dangerous indeed as it is highly defamatory of Mr Wagstaff. The points that Mr Eagle make about Mr Wagstaff cannot be classed as being of public interest as they are irrelevant with regards to the wind turbines being built. Also, the quote contains malice and prejudice throughout, which are aspects that make such claims hard to defend if they were to come to print. This is a very hot topic indeed.

The main points of discussion this week was that of Privilege. Privilege allows journalists to write or broadcast material which can be defamatory, or untrue, or even both at the same time. It gives us protection from being sued.

There are two types of privilege:

Absolute Privilege - where it is applicable, is a complete answer and bar to any action for defamation. It does not matter whether the words are true or false. It does not matter that they were spoken or written maliciously. Absolute Privilege applies to court reports, but reports must fair, accurate and contemporaneous.

Qualified Privilege - is available as a defence where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest. Qualified Privilege is available on many occasions under statute (e.g. for a report of a public meeting). The defence is qualified because it is lost if the motive in publishing is malicious.