Legal knowledge | Media law » Case Study for Education in Journalism, Media Law

Source: http://www.doksinet Case study details Media Law: Learning the principles of the law of defamation through discovery and guided discussion. Author: David Baines Institution: School of Education and Communication, University of Newcastle upon Tyne School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland. Author information: David has been a regional daily newspaper journalist for 27 years and is a visiting lecturer in journalism at both Sunderland University and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He has taught in Higher Education for eight years, from Level 1 to MA and on the accredited National Council for the Training of Journalists programme at Sunderland. He has designed and taught modules on print journalism, media ethics, newsletter production and public administration, sub-editing and design, but specialises in media law. He delivers professional development programmes for journalists on Trinity Mirror’s regional morning newspaper The Journal in

Newcastle, on which he is a sub-editor,. He is an accredited National Union of Journalists learning representative and a member of the North East Area Advisory Committee of the NCTJ. He gained his Cert Ed (HE) in 2000 and has been a member of the ILT, now HE Academy, since May, 2001. Abstract: How legal actions for defamation arise, what a complainant has to show to win a libel case, what he does not have to show – and who can sue. Understanding the risks of committing defamation is of fundamental importance in journalism, but defamation law is founded on case law and precedent and that which is considered defamatory will vary from time to time, community to community - and person to person. Journalism students need to be able to analyse a report and evaluate any risk in the light of its content and context. Source: http://www.doksinet The approach presented here encourages discovery of the principles of defamation primarily through guided small-group discussions feeding back to

the full class using a series of exercises which draw on students’ own experience. This introductory session lasts two hours and prepares students to apply the concepts to real world exercises. It does not address the further topic of defences against a suit for libel. Discipline: Media and Communications. Date written: December 2005 Source: http://www.doksinet Case Study for Education in Journalism Media Law: Learning the principles of the law of defamation through discovery and guided discussion David Baines University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne University of Sunderland The Journal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Summary: How legal actions for defamation arise, what a complainant has to show to win a libel case, what he/she does not have to show – and who can sue. An understanding of the risk of committing defamation is of fundamental importance in journalism, but little that the working journalist – or student journalist – needs to know is enshrined in statute. The law is largely

founded on precedent and that which is considered defamatory will vary from time to time, community to community - and from person to person. Students are often asked to learn by rote a series of guidelines and an ever-growing list of cases and precedents, but this does not embed the learning they require – how to analyse a report and evaluate any risk of defamation in the light of what is written / broadcast and the context in which it is to appear. The approach presented here encourages discovery of the principles of the laws of defamation primarily through guided small-group discussions feeding back to the full class to pool conclusions, the approach developed by Andrew Northedge. (Northedge, 1975) It uses a series of exercises which draw on students’ own experience and cultural awareness and is designed to build an understanding of the principles one step at a time and develop and reinforce the student’s ability to apply those principles to material they produce for

publication. Source: http://www.doksinet It has been said that although this sequential structure looks easy, iy is the most difficult method to make meaningful and is the easiest to get wrong. (Brown, Atkins,1988) This is why I have presented each step with discussion points in detail in the paper and stress the importance of monitoring discussions, concept-checking and recapping when necessary. This introductory session is divided into six sections and prepares students to apply the concepts to real world exercises in a subsequent session. It introduces but does not address defences against a suit for libel because these raise additional issues which are addressed in other seminars. The recommended support text for the law in this field is Wesh, T. Greenwood, W. Banks D (2005) McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. 18th Ed Oxford Assessment: The sequential structure of the seminar and intensive group work allows the tutor constantly to monitor the students’ discussion, assess

their grasp of the key principles and to return to any areas which some of the students have failed to understand. The structure of the seminar embraces the learning model put forward by Lynn McAlpine and accommodates its first three elements: engagement, informing, practice. (McAlpine, 2004) However, this paper suggests a further optional step, time allowing, in Section 4 on publication. (See below) Should this be included, the session will allow the tutor further to monitor and assess students’ understanding of the principles involved in defamation law and their ability to analyse real-world texts and evaluate them in accordance with the principles they have learned in the seminar. This goes some way to accommodating the fourth element of McAlpine’s model, summative assessment, although it does not involve a formal test. Level: Source: http://www.doksinet This approach has been used with Level 2 undergraduates and with students on the MA programme at Sunderland University. Its

flexibility lies in the opportunities it allows for wider discussion and analysis of: • The applications of the legal principles examined. • Real-world examples which the students can contribute from their own experience. • Cases which are in the news or have recently been in the news at the time of teaching. It has been used (with some adaptation) with groups of up to 80 in a lecture theatre, but is best used with groups of 16 to 20 in workshop sessions. Resources / requirements: 1) Handouts: Three sheets of A4 – BBC report on TV documentary The Secret Policeman, Oct 2003 (see No4 below). One sheet of A4 per student printed with seven numbered “newspaper articles”. Appendix 2 is provided, with examples. One sheet of A4 with copies of OHPs / Powerpoint slides. Appendix 3 2) Seven OHP / Powepoint slides – Appendix 2. 3) An OHP or Powerpoint projector. If these are not available, a flip-pad will do. 4) It is useful, but not necessary for students to be able to log on to the

webstite http://news.bbccouk/1/hi/uk/3212442stm and read the BBC report themselves or for the tutor to be able to project the website on a screen or electronic whiteboard. Prerequisite skills: Each student should have some knowledge of current affairs. Time requirement: Source: http://www.doksinet The session is usually delivered in two hours but has been adapted to be delivered in two parts and additional material can be added to further develop and assess learning. Preparation: The example handouts provided can be used or the tutor can prepare material which is more topical. Learning objectives: At the end of the session the students should: • Understand the principles of defamation (excluding defences) applied in Britain. • Be able to analyse a report and recognise any risk it poses in the light of the laws of defamation. • Be able to write a report avoiding the risk of defamation. • Recognise the dangers of slandering someone during an investigation, or interview.

Outcomes: I have found that students who have learned through this approach have developed a clearer understanding of the principles of defamation law and been better able to apply them and recognise dangers of defamation in real-world cases than those who have had to learn by rote legal precedents. This session has also left them better able to understand the concepts introduced later when considering the defences the law has developed in defamation cases. It has also alerted them to the need critically to challenge any personal prejudices they might have and any tendencies to stereotype individuals. Source: http://www.doksinet Seminar plan: Section1 - Complainant must demonstrate to a court that they have been defamed, that they words complained of identify them as the person defamed and that the article complained of has been published. 1) Engagement: Initiate with class a brief discussion, eliciting their attitudes towards the police in Britain and whether they think the police

treat all groups fairly. Once a variety of views have been expressed, ask the class to log on to http://news.bbccouk/1/hi/uk/3212442stm if they have individual access to computers, or project the site onto a screen or whiteboard or give them printed out handouts of the site. It is a report on the BBC website of the documentary The Secret Policeman, broadcast in October 2003 and concerns an undercover reporter discovering widespread racism at a police training centre. Return to the discussion Were the students surprised at the findings of the documentary? You may wish to tell them that the documentary is now used on police training programmes. 2) Divide the students into groups of three, four or five, but no more than five, depending on the size of the group. 3) Tell the students they are each to receive a handout but they are not to look at it until told to. Give out handouts 4) Tell the students they are police officers. They consider themselves to be professional and conscientious,

to behave honestly and ethically in the performance of their duty. Last night they were on patrol in the city centre - each group was a patrol unit in a car / van. At about 12.30am they noticed a middle-aged man who was unsteady on his feet; he kept leaning against the wall and looked to be in danger of collapsing, He appeared to be drunk. They stopped to check on him, found that he was drunk and decided to take him back to the station Source: http://www.doksinet to sober up. He did not want to go with them so they arrested him on suspicion of being drunk and incapable. On the way they kept him awake by asking him about his family’s Caribbean background, his work, and where he had been that night. At the police station, he was put in a cell, kept under observation, and released without charge this morning, when he was sober. 5) Ask the students to turn to the handout and read only numbered section one, a report in today’s local evening paper: Police chiefs launched an

investigation today after a senior (city) council officer claimed he had been wrongfully arrested and racially abused. Assistant director of housing Andrew Forrester said he had been walking home after an office party at a city centre pub at about 12.30am today when the officers approached him in Warwick Street Mr Forrester, whose grandfather came from the Caribbean, said the officers accused him of being drunk, arrested him, and as they drove him to Albert Street police station, they made constant reference to his family’s Jamaican background and racially abused him. He said the remarks continued until he was put in a cell. A police spokesman confirmed that Mr Forrester had been arrested last night and detained, but that he had been released without charge. He said Mr Forrester’s allegations were being investigated. 6) Remind each group that they were the officers concerned and ask them to discuss their reactions to the article. Monitor discussions. When appropriate, ask the

groups, in turn, to tell the whole class what their reactions were. Generally, they are going to be hurt and angry. If you need to, elicit their concerns about racism and police officers and what others might think, their embarrassment that the report reflects badly, and unfairly, on them, the force as a whole and their colleagues at the Source: http://www.doksinet station. Damage to reputation is the key issue (Note: The subject matter is both sensitive and controversial. I have found no problems in using it with ethnically mixed groups – indeed the discussions it provokes in such groups are often more thoughtful and more lively. The material is chosen deliberately to confront the students with a challenge to a stereotype – the racist police officer. Racism is a major problem in police ranks – the BBC’s Secret Policeman report (Oct 2003) demonstrated widespread racist attitudes within a cohort of Greater Manchester Police trainees and the Macpherson Report into the Stephen

Lawrence murder (1999) found the Metropolitan Police to be institutionally racist. For this reason, some journalists have been more readily prepared to accept an allegation of racism against police officers than they might have been against another group of people. It is important for student journalists to recognise that such a tendency – towards the uncritical acceptance of stereotypical characteristics of any group - can lead them into the danger of defamation and is an issue to be aware of and to guard against. The example is chosen to emphasise this point and it is one which should be highlighted by the teacher, preferably through elicitation, during the discussion. 7) The teacher raises the objection that the officers are not identified in the report. Students will explore the dangers of colleagues and possibly family and friends being able to identify them from the information given. Elicit views on how many people need to know - is loss of reputation among a few close friends

or colleagues as bad / better / or worse than in a wider group. 8) Teacher elicits discussion on differences between a report in a newspaper and a complaint made to a superior officer. 9) Return to report and ask students, in groups, to edit it so nothing defamatory appears. Groups explain to class what they have taken out and why. Could police object to report with Source: http://www.doksinet defamatory matter excised. 10) Repeat with material which might identify officers, then with publication – if not published, there is no problem. 11) OHP / Powerpoint slide – bullet points: Defamation, Identification, Publication Students have demonstrated that if a complainant wishes to sue for defamation they must demonstrate all these three elements are there or it will not succeed. Sections 2, 3 and 4 address, respectively, the concepts of defamation, identification and publication in greater detail in a legal context. Section 2 – Defamation. 1) Exposition: Teacher explains that no

law lays down definition of defamation because that which is held to damage a reputation will change from time to time and society to society. Examples: during the 1914-18 war it was held defamatory to, wrongly, say someone was German, in the 19th Century it was defamatory to suggest that a gentleman had borrowed money from his butler. Discussion: Will it damage someone’s reputation to suggest someone is gay? A pop singer? An actor? The master of the local hunt? The imam of the local mosque? Exposition: Judges have laid down some guidelines regarding material which will TEND to be defamatory – it is usually left up to a jury to decide, using common sense and experience of the world, if the material IS defamatory, using the standards of intelligence Source: http://www.doksinet and judgment of a hypothetical “reasonable person”. 2) Teacher refers students to second numbered report on handout: Superstore owner Andrew Smith said yesterday he had paid MP Peter Alexander £10,000

over five years to ask a series of questions in the House of Commons relating to planning policy. Discussion: On the strength of this article, draw up a list of adjectives which you believe would apply to the character of MP Andrew Smith. OHP/Powerpoint slide: Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt or lower them in the eyes of right-thinking people. 3) Teacher tells students they will receive copies of OHPs / slides later and refers them to third numbered report on handout: ”Angry mum Susan Jones said yesterday her son, John, eight, had to undergo an emergency operation after a school nurse blundered. She said nurse Mary Smith had not realised John’s leg had been broken when he limped off in a rugby match and sent him back to play on after bandaging his shin.” Discussion: As above, adjectives to describe nurse. OHP / Powerpoint slide: Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to disparage a person in his

business, trade, office or profession. 4) Teacher refers students to fourth numbered report on handout: Truturn Engineering boss Alan Wilkinson has sold his Rolls Royce Silver Ghost company car and bought a modest Ford Mondeo to Source: http://www.doksinet replace it, prompting workers to speculate that the firm is in financial difficulties and their jobs are in jeopardy. No small worry in the run-up to Christmas. Discussion: Teacher tells students that they are long-standing customers of Truturn engineering – what is their reaction? Raises further point that an incorporated body such as a company can sue for defamation as well as an individual. OHP / Powerpoint slide: Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to cause a person to be shunned or avoided. Section 3: Identification. 1) There is a danger of identification, even if the person is not named. Teacher refers students to report number five: Light might finally be shed on the controversial disappearance of a pleasure

cruiser with five lives off the North-East coast in 1985. It has long been rumoured that the 60ft Evenrude was accidentally sunk by the British submarine Renegade, which was on exercise in the area at the time. The Ministry of Defence has consistently denied such reports but the log of the Renegade has turned up after being bought by a collector of Royal Navy memorabilia from a retired submariner living in the Scilly Isles. Discussion points: First, check – do all of the students know what a “log” is and what the Scilly Isles are – it is relevant to the discussion that they understand that the community is a small one. After students have discussed the report in groups, elicit first, if necessary, what is defamatory - allegation of ex-submariner selling secret material – then problems of identification – practical points such as the size of the community must be taken into account. “Ex- Source: http://www.doksinet submariner in Portsmouth” or London, would not lead

to identification. Naming the person is not necessary (see first report concerning police) elicit elements in the report which would help to identify him. OHP/ Powerpoint: Judges say the test is whether the words complained of will lead a person acquainted with the complainant to believe he is the person referred to. 2) There is a danger of libeling someone unintentionally. Report number six. Police fraud officers are understood to be investigating a senior council officer employed at (city) civic centre. The woman, who has not been named, is understood to work in the housing department. Discussion: Students are likely to draw parallels with the previous example. A point to elicit, if necessary, is the possibility of more than one woman being in a senior position in this department and, therefore, the danger of libeling someone unintentionally. 3) There is a danger of libeling people unintentionally by giving an insufficiently precise identification. Report number seven. Alan Smith, a

Weatherfield shipyard worker, has been flown back to Britain by authorities in Spain after he was caught shoplifting in a supermarket in Benidorm. Discussion: The person is identified by name, but without unique characteristics – an age and the street he lives on, the report could refer to another Alan Smith who works in a Weatherfield shipyard. Source: http://www.doksinet Section 4 – Publication This explores: • The difference between slander and libel – danger of slandering somebody while investigating wrong-doing. • The fact that publishing a defamatory statement about one person to a third person exposes the publisher to the risk of an action, even if the defamatory statement was made by someone else. • Reporting defamatory statements as rumours is still defamatory. • Each publication is separate - the fact that a defamatory statement has been published by another newspaper / book or broadcasting organisation and no action has been taken does not prevent action

being taken on this occasion. • Publication on a website is taken have taken place wherever, and whenever that site is accessed. If time allows it, understanding of these principles can be developed through a continuation of the small group discussions feeding back to whole class discussions based on sample reports. Examples are given in the appendix. I have sometimes found this possible in a two-hour session at MA level, but not at undergraduate level and concentration is usually – but not always - beginning to flag at this point. Alternatively, the groups can each be asked to research one of the issues above – rumours – each publication is separate – publication on a website, etc, using McNae pp 218 – 223 and then giving a presentation to the class. This has the added advantage of introducing them to real cases. If there is no time to cover the remaining material in discussions, the teacher can give a brief presentation Powerpoint / OHP presentation of the points above.

However, where facilities allow – the students can be directed to a website which contains material which might be highly critical of Source: http://www.doksinet various individuals. The tutor must research this in advance, but some examples are provided in appendix 3. The students are asked to find a passage which they consider to be defamatory, using what they have learned in the session so far. This reinforces their learning and allows the tutor to monitor and assess their understanding of the principles involved and ability to analyse a piece of text and evaluate it in accordance with those principles. One or two passages are read to the class or web pages projected on to a screen for general consideration, and once the students have considered whether or not the material is defamatory, the tutor guides the discussion, through careful questioning, to elicit the above points regarding publication. Section 5 – What a claimant does not have to prove This is a very brief

section. It is best done through explanation of the three points with a Powerpoint / OHP presentation. • The claimant does not have to prove that the defamatory statement is false. If the defendant says it is true he / she must prove it to be. • The claimant does not have to prove that the defendant intended to defame them. • The claimant does not have to prove that the defamatory statement damaged his / her reputation. The court will presume damage. Section 6 – Who can sue. Again, this is a brief section and can be covered in the same way as Section 5. Or group research and presentation can be adopted using McNae pp 211-2 and asking for presentations to be made on the cases of Yachting World (and p 209) Walker Wingsail Systems plc v Sheahan Bray and IPC Magazines QBD 1994 (inreported) and Source: http://www.doksinet Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers (1993) AC534 • An individual person, a company or an incorporated body can sue. • A Charity can sue. • Local

councils and government departments cannot sue – but individuals in their ranks can. Conclusion - Danger of carelessness To close the session, I have prepared two Powerpoint/ OHP slides which make the point that suits for defamation are usually attracted through carelessness – one features a simple misprint, a littoral in a headline, the other illustrates how a forgotten comma can change the meaning of a sentence, and give it a defamatory meaning. Car chief to pay damages becomes Car thief to pay damages and He went back to the caravan, where he lived, with Miss X becomes He went back to the caravan, where he lived with Miss X Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 1: Secret Policeman – handout No 1 Anger after police racism film Campaigners and police officers have expressed shock after the broadcast of an undercover TV documentary on racism among recruits. The Secret Policeman, shown on BBC One on Tuesday, featured video of one officer dressing up in an improvised Ku Klux

Klan hood, and others using terms such as "nigger" and particularly "Paki" on a regular basis. Evidence uncovered in the documentary - at a police training centre in Cheshire One officer is shown wearing a Ku has now led to the suspension Klan mask in the programme of seven police officers, from three different forces. Klux The BBC was criticised for the undercover techniques used in the programme, but producers insisted it was the only way to gather the evidence. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) described the BBC programme as "truly shocking". Reporter Mark Daly recorded one officer, Pc Rob Pulling of North Wales police, apparently saying he would kill an Asian person "if I could get away with it" and a string of other racist comments. This shows a pattern of behaviour which is widespread, and though officially condemned, is tacitly condoned by [the officers] peers Trevor Phillips, CRE Pc Pulling also

said Hitler had had the "right idea" but had gone about it in the wrong way. In the wake of the programme it emerged Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had suspended a further two officers, and Cheshire Police also confirmed they had taken an officer off duty. Source: http://www.doksinet Earlier this week GMP suspended three officers, while North Wales Police suspended one, as a result of the allegations to be made in the programme. John Stalker, a former assistant chief constable with Greater Manchester Police, described Pc Rob Pulling as a "cowardly bigot" whose poisonous views bordered on the criminal. Officers suspended "Those were racially-aggravated opinions. He looked at home with a hood on his head. What I would like to see is that the police force has actually learnt something from this." Mr Phillips said: "This is not just a matter of a few recruits who can be trained out of their behaviour. This shows a pattern of behaviour which is

widespread, and though officially condemned, is tacitly condoned by their peers." Mr Daly, 28, joined GMP as a trainee officer and secretly filmed recruits at Bruche National Training Centre in Warrington, Cheshire. Damaging property Mr Daly, from Glasgow, was arrested in August after the police received an anonymous tip-off alleging an undercover journalist had joined the force. The reporter was arrested on suspicion of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and damaging police property. He is due to answer bail next month In a statement ahead of the film, GMP said: "Greater Manchester Police is firmly committed to taking further action against any other officers who are shown on the programme making racist comments. Reporter Mark Daly was arrested in August "We are disappointed that, despite repeated requests, we have not yet received a copy of the programme from the BBC to enable us to take immediate action." Pc Pulling was also recorded insulting the

murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence, saying he had deserved to die and referring to his parents as "spongers". Source: http://www.doksinet Little faith in service In a statement, Scotland Yard called the remarks about the murder of Stephen Lawrence "callous". It said: "It is small wonder that his parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, have little faith in the police service." Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) president Chris Fox said while the group condemned racism, the public should not make generalisations based on the documentary. The BBC programme would have "eroded public confidence" in the police, said Chief Inspector Leroy Logan, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Black Police Association. Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 2: Handout 2 - sample reports. 1) Police chiefs launched an investigation today after a senior (city) council officer claimed he had been wrongfully arrested and racially abused. Assistant

director of housing Andrew Forrester said he had been walking home after an office party at a city centre pub at about 12.30am today when the officers approached him in Warwick Street Mr Forrester, whose grandfather came from the Caribbean, said the officers accused him of being drunk, arrested him, and as they drove him to Albert Street police station, they made constant reference to his family’s Jamaican background and racially abused him. He said the remarks continued until he was put in a cell. A police spokesman confirmed that Mr Forrester had been arrested last night and detained, but that he had been released without charge. He said Mr Forrester’s allegations were being investigated. 2) Superstore owner Andrew Smith said yesterday he had paid MP Peter Alexander £10,000 over five years to ask a series of questions in the House of Commons relating to planning policy. 3) Angry mum Susan Jones said yesterday her son, John, eight, had to undergo an emergency operation after a

school nurse blundered. She said nurse Mary Smith had not realised John’s leg had been broken when he limped off in a rugby match and sent him back to play on after bandaging his shin 4) Truturn Engineering boss Alan Wilkinson has sold his Rolls Royce Silver Ghost company car and bought a modest Ford Mondeo to replace it, prompting workers to speculate that the firm is in financial difficulties and their jobs are in jeopardy. No small worry in the run-up to Christmas. 5) Light might finally be shed on the controversial disappearance of a pleasure cruiser with five lives off the North-East coast in 1985. It has long been rumoured that the 60ft Evenrude was accidentally sunk by the British submarine Renegade, which was on exercise in the area at the time. The Ministry of Defence has consistently denied such reports but the log of the Renegade has turned up after being bought by a collector of Royal Navy memorabilia from a retired submariner living in the Scilly Isles. 6) Police fraud

officers are understood to be investigating a senior council officer employed at (city) civic centre. The woman, who has not been named, is understood to work in the housing department 7) Alan Smith, a Weatherfield shipyard worker, has been flown back to Britain by authorities in Spain after he was caught shoplifting in a supermarket in Benidorm. Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 3: Powerpoint / OHP slides – handout No 3 S1 Defamation Identification Publication ----------------------------------------S2 Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt or lower them in the eyes of right-thinking people. Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to disparage a person in his business, trade, office or profession. Judges say a statement is defamatory if it tends to cause a person to be shunned or avoided. Judges say the test is whether the words complained of will lead a person acquainted with the complainant to believe he

is the person referred to. --------------------------------------------S4 Slander – spoken libel published in a permanent form (+broadcast and stage). Publisher is liable, even if publishing another’s words. Reporting defamatory statements as rumours is still defamatory. Each publication is separate - that a defamatory statement has been published previously and no action has been taken does not prevent action being taken on this occasion. Publication on a website takes place every time that site is viewed. --------------------------------------------------S5 The claimant does not have to prove that the defamatory statement was untrue. If that is defence, it is up to the defendant to prove it is true The claimant does not have to prove that the defendant intended to defame them. The claimant does not have to prove that the defamatory statement damaged his / her reputation. The court will presume damage ------------------------------------------------------S6 An individual person, a

company or an incorporated body can sue A Charity can sue. Local councils and government departments cannot sue – but individuals in their ranks can sue ----------------------------------------------------Conclusion Car chief to pay damages Car thief to pay damages He went back to the caravan, where he lived, with Miss X He went back to the caravan, where he lived with Miss X Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 4: Optional sample exercises for S4 – Publication Slander / libel A reporter is investigating an allegation of sexual abuse at children’s homes. He has been told by one former resident of a particular home that John Smith, a care assistant at the home for a period of seven years, sexually abused him. The reporter traces several other former clients and asks them if they were abused by Smith. What dangers does the reporter face in investigating the matter in this way and how could he or she avoid these dangers? Rumour A reporter has been told that a senior member of the

Government is having an affair with his press agent. He is given this information from several sources and it becomes a common topic of conversation among her colleagues in the press and backbench MPs of all parties. She fears that another newspaper will publish these reports before she can find out whether they are true or not. She writes a report stating as a matter of fact that these rumours are circulating, but stresses that they are merely rumours. Is it safe? Previous publication A reporter on a TV station comes across an article in the students’ union newspaper of the local university which accuses one of the sociology lecturers of ripping off students by renting them rooms in various houses he owns and charging them very high rents. In the article, the lecturer is quoted as refusing to comment. The TV journalist checks with the editor of the student paper and finds that the lecturer has not threatened legal action. He puts the allegation to the lecturer, who again refuses to

comment. In the light of the past publication, is it safe to broadcast the report? The Internet Where and when is a website published? Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 5: Some useful weblinks for S4 – Publication http://www.glossynewscom http://www.private-eyecouk http://www.drudgereportcom http://www.satirewirecom http://www.satiresearchcom Source: http://www.doksinet Bibliography: Brown, G. & Atkins, M (1088) Effective teaching in higher education London: Routledge McAlpine, L. (2004) Designing learning as well as teaching in Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol 5, No 2. London: ILTHE/Sage Northedge, A. (1975) Learning through discussion in the Open University in Teaching at a Distance 2, 1975) Wesh, T. Greenwood, W Banks D (2005) McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. 18th Ed Oxford Key words: Defamation, journalism, media-law, libel, slander