Defamation is something that
journalists, but also the public, need to be aware of. Defamation being, a
damaging statement that can have an affect on a person's or people's reputation
or business.
Anything that is therefore published
to an audience, be it print, broadcasted (TV or radio) or on the internet; is
potentially libel. Libel is any any statement that is 'permanent' (but usually
written). However, a defamatory statement is slander, as it is spoken, or in
any other transient form.
With journalism becoming digital, it
is now likely that more people are going to be libel for defamation. Anyone can
be an author on the internet, and their views or opinions towards a certain
person are often expressed via social media sites. Due to the increased amount
and popularity of people getting in to blogging and microblogging, such as
Facebook and Twitter, it has led to the creation of 'citizen journalism'. This
meaning, that anyone from the public is able to publish anything that they wish
to on a particular topic, sharing their thoughts. They also offer first-hand
news, by liveblogging events. Obviously, this does have some drawbacks with
references to being libel. Information they give might be completely, or only
partially untrue; possibly with more exaggeration than there should be. The way
they write might also be misinterpreted as something else, making their
statement unreliable.
For example, March of this year, an
Australian student, Andrew Farley, 20, was fined £57,000, ($AUS105,000),
for defaming statements on Twitter and Facebook about Christine Mickle, 58, who
had replaced Farley's father's position as head of the Music and Arts
department at his school. He had personally not been taught by Mickle, but
posted messages a year after he graduated, "suggesting
she was responsible for the fate of his father, who stood down in 2008 for
health reasons". This was clearly untrue, and had a "devastating
effect" on Mickle, who had to take sick leave. As stated on
The Independent, the Judge Elkaim said: "The defence of truth when it is spurious is particularly hurtful to a person who has been the subject of such unsubstantiated allegations."
With citizen
journalism in mind, it is evident that this is also a serious issue for
professional journalists. Sir Cliff Richard
is preparing to sue the BBC over their controversial live coverage of the
police raid on his home, while he was in Portugal in August of this year. It
could be argued that the BBC deliberately tried to defame Sir Cliff Richard by choosing to film
the raid, having a helicopter hover over the property in order for cameras to
zoom in on what the police were doing inside the house; and stationing
reporters at the scene before the police had arrived.
In a
statement, Sir Cliff Richard commented on his sexual offence accusations: "For
many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety
which have been circulating online. The allegations are completely false." It
is clear from his statement that the online community have also attempted to defame Sir Cliff Richard's reputation. He has
not been arrested.
Is being ethical important to a journalist? Or
is getting the story more so?
No comments:
Post a Comment