18 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
A good week then for Lynn Barber and her employers at the Telegraph, as a libel case brought against the newspaper by author Sarah Thornton was dismissed by Mr Justice Tugendhat.
Legal blogger Jack of Kent draws particular attention to point 89 of the ruling, of which he says: “it appears that the Mr Justice Tugendhat has effectively introduced a substantial harm test for libel.”
I accept [The Telegraph’s] submission that whatever definition of “defamatory” is adopted, it must include a qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims.
The question of seriousness of a libel case is echoed in the part of Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill that deals with proof of substantial damage:
(1) The court must strike out an action for defamation unless the claimant shows that—
(a) the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused substantial harm to the claimant’s reputation; or
(b) it is likely that such harm will be caused to the claimant’s reputation by the publication.
It is certain that a lot of time, money, and pain can be saved if these principles — whether from court rulings or mooted legislation — are properly applied.
But neither principle is yet enshrined as law (though we may hope that Judge Tugendhat’s judgment becomes a point of reference).
Incidentally, it is well worth reading the Telegraph decision, as it provides an excellent overview of the shifting definitions of defamation over the years.
22 Jun 2009 | Comment, News and features, United Kingdom
Transparency is no longer just an obsession for journalists and campaigners, writes Chris Ames
(more…)
11 May 2009 | Uncategorized
Squalid is the adjective that best describes the approach of our not-so-honourable members of parliament to their own expenses. But what about the journalism that has helped to all but destroy what remaining trust the public had in its elected representatives?
Some legitimate questions have been raised about the tactics deployed by the Daily Telegraph in buying in the information, apparently a CD from a mole inside parliament which had been touted around newspapers for months.
Cheque-book journalism is a time-honoured tactic of British newspapers, often revealing tawdry stories about celebrities that have little to do with free expression and more to do with prying into people’s private lives.
But in this instance, the Telegraph has surely acted in the public interest. Indeed, all the facts surrounding the case suggest that the newspaper has –– far from undermining our democracy –– helped to enhance it.
MPs, it should be remembered, fought tooth and nail to try to exempt themselves and the details of their 88-pence bath plugs and black glittered toilet seats from the public gaze. When they were forced to publish the information, they sought to time the release to coincide with the summer holidays. Then, instead of dealing with the issues in hand, the stock response of some parliamentary authorities was to call in the police to investigate wrongdoing and to attempt to change the rules by ensuring the expenses will not be published in future.
My critique of the British press is somewhat different to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s who, in one of his valedictory speeches as prime minister, described the British media as “feral”. Certainly there are many valid concerns around standards, around accountability (journalists’ expenses chits would also make for amusing reading), and around attention spans in the 24-hour news culture.
But by far the worst trait of the modern-day profession is a lack of fearless investigation.
One former reporter turned government press officer once told me how shocked he was, when moving across into the state sector, to see how little the public actually knew about what was being done in their name. Editors are frightened by the UK’s draconian libel laws; they are concerned about their day-to-day budgets, and they are interested mainly in “quick hits” rather than difficult holding the powerful to account.
And what of the media’s purported role as an “advocate of democracy”? I have heard this one thrown around in recent days. This school of thought argues that journalism has a “responsibility” to “promote” our democratic norms.
No it does not. It must act professionally, but one of its main preoccupations should be putting into the public domain information that the authorities would rather people do not know. It is then for readers or viewers to draw their own conclusions about the quality of our public representatives. Respect is not an entitlement. It is a reward for principle, duty — and good behaviour.
This post was originally published at Reuters Great Debate
