27/10/07
1. You are a newspaper editor. One of your reporters has made an honest mistake that defamed someone. You publish an apology. The person defamed is not satisfied and wants you to print a full-page feature story promoting her business or she will sue. What will you do?
It depends on how significant the error is. If it opens you up for a large defamation suit then print the story. It is up to you as the editor to contact your lawyer and discuss the legal ramifications. If the lawyer informs you there is no need to do the story as you have met your legal requirements by printing an apology then there is no need to comply with her wish to promote her business.
2.Would you support a ‘public figure’ defence for the media that would sharply limit the rights of public figures, ranging from premiers to cricketers and rocks stars, to take out defamation suits against the media? why?
No. Because i don’t believe that just because they are in the public eye they should have less rights about want is printed about them. If the defamation rules were to change i believe they should change for everyone not just one group of public individuals. I came to this conclusion by thinking how would if feel if stories were being written about me, and on top of that being followed by cameras every day. Also then how would this rule be governed and in this i mean who is the one to say someone is more of a public figure than someone else… Would a local celebrity only have these new rights in their local newspaper or all over the country, and world for that matter.
However to contradict myself i do think that there is not enough free speech in Australia and i do believe the defamation rules are too harsh, however i dont think this is the way to go.
3. You have promised a confidential source that you will not identify her. However, you discover that what she told you is untrue. Your newspaper is sued for defamation. You try to contact the person but she has vanished. Do you reveal her identity in court? Why?
Yes. She lied to me , hence she is an unreliable source. She did not keep her word with me so i why should i keep my word with her. Its a two way street and i thinks its only fair that her identity is revealed, as its not my fault the information i was given was faulty. Especially if it means your paper will beat the defamation case by passing the blame onto her then of course you would reveal her identity. If she is not at fault and there has been an error in communication it is up to the court to decide that, not you.
Thoughts on Chapter 17:
I have learnt to:
- Never make assumptions.
- If in doubt leave it out.
- Take clear accurate notes.
- Never to argue with someone being interviewed, as claims of malice might later be made.
- Ensure every side of an issue is sought.
- Strive for balance.
- Get primary documentary evidence wherever possible.
- Handle complaints with care.
- If someone refused to return phone calls, ensure careful records are kept to show these attempts were made.
- Be mindful that a process of ‘discovery’ in a lawsuit means you may be asked to produce notebooks, tape recordings, letters, and other documentation. I.E. keep everything, and keep it neat and orderly.
- Check and double-check the spelling of names, and that dates/times/numbers/ages/titles are correct.
This is a defamation checklist from Conley and Lamble.
Below is a link to a defamation site which just explains what defamation is in lamens terms. Its easy to read so if you want to read a little bit more on defamation visit the site.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html
Cartoon from: www.uow.edu.au/…/ documents/defamation.html
