I wrote a bit about QP in my last Media Law post, but here's some more, just for you.
Qualified Privilege is a very important defence for journalists because it grants them the privilege to say pretty much what they like about someone as long as it's in the public interest e.g. the Evra and Suarez racism row. As 'racism' is against the law (in Chris Horrie's opinion, it shouldn't be) it is deemed to be in the public interest, just as reporting the details of a murder case is in the PI.
The PCC code should shed some more light on this: PCC Editor's Code. The main points is raises about a story being in the public interest are: Does it expose a crime? Does it expose a health risk? Does it expose hypocrisy and/or lying?
If an article invokes public interest, then the PCC requires editors to prove how the PI was served and then the PCC will decide to what extent the article actually serves the PI, or whether it's just idle tittle tattle that only a handful of people (mainly celebrity obsessed fools) are interested in.
However, a Journalist can have his/her QP taken away if he/she doesn't give both sides of the argument e.g. prosecution and defence. The journalist's story must be in the first edition of the newspaper/magazine and the first TV bulletin possible. This means that I can't hold on to my story for ages and then release it when it will have maximum impact, I have to report it almost straight away. Ideally, a journalist should submit their story from the court. A journalist mustn't show malice to one side or the other and their story must have NO errors.
To maintain my QP, my story must be FAST, ACCURATE AND FAIR.
A journalist also has QP at public events/meetings e.g. local govt meetings, pressure group meetings and AGMs of companies. Did you know that a sports press conference is a public meeting?
Also, if you have met all 10 points of the 'Reynolds Test' (see below) you may have the QP to make defamatory claims, without having to quote someone with Absolute Privilege.
The Reynolds Test
This is a 10 point list of 'responsible journalism' and how to deliver a quality piece of journalism.
1. The seriousness of the allegation - more serious cases mean that more protection will be applied to the story.
2. The nature of the info - includes whether the matter is of public concern.
3. The source of the info - your information must be 'ethically sourced', rather like the food at the Uni canteen.
4. How you verified a person's story (or version of events)
5. The status of the info - whether it is old and (for example) a case of medical negligence had been previously dismissed by an internal enquiry.
6. The urgency of the matter e.g. if the story is about a top politician being corrupt and the general election is soon, the story must be published very quickly.
7. If there is any comment from the claimant.
8. Getting the gist of the claimant's side of the story in your article.
9. The article's tone - if you imply that X is corrupt, this is more likely to be protected than if you say directly "X is corrupt", as this could be a defamatory statement.
10. The circumstances of the publication - this is similar to point 6.
Some important cases involving the Reynolds defence
The Galloway case - The Daily Torygraph published some very serious (defamatory) allegations about George Galloway, for which they had no proof of, no defence of comment or justification. The journalist also failed the '10 point test'. Galloway was awarded £150,000.
The Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel v.s. Wall Street Journal case - The WSJ printed an article in 2005 that basically said that MALJ was financing terrorism. The allegations couldn't be proved, but the WSJ thought that the Reynolds defence would cover them - it didn't. However Lord Phillips (top law guy) didn't agree.
TB 2011
good notes
ReplyDelete