Cw1 media law A legal report on three separate stories/articles, that can be construed as potentially libellous, from “The Observer”. One of the greatest dangers of writing or publishing an article or story, is the risk of libel action because of the law of defamation. The law of defamation was developed to protect the individual’s reputation from an attack in a publication or statement, which conjures up negative estimations of the individual’s character, of right thinking members of society. The law of defamation however can be defended against by a publication or persons with the power of freedom of speech, which indicates the freedom to expose misconduct and therefore damage a reputation. The courts or a mediatory body, when considering the Defamation Act 1996, must therefore determine the balance between defamation and freedom of speech. In relation to the dangers of defamation faced by journalists, I will attempt to produce a legal report based on three separate stories or articles that is, or appears to be defamatory. I will attempt to explain in each case why the material may be construed as defamatory as defined by the law, and outline the defences available to the publisher should libel action under the Defamation Act 1996 be implemented. The first story I managed to identify, as being potentially defamatory was a story featured in The Observer’s Sport’s section of its paper on the 23rd of September 2007 (see extract 1). To establish whether the article is defamatory we must first establish to whom it sets out to defame. The first indication of this is in the title of the story: “Turncoat Terry”, which indicates the individual in question; John Terry as having deferred to an opposite faction. Ursula Smart commented on this criterion by saying, “The words complained of must be interpreted in their context and the plaintiff is not allowed to select passages that are prima facie libellous if the passage taken as a whole is not defamatory” (Smart, U. 2006 p. 167). Therefore in order to continue reading the article as defamatory towards John Terry, the main body of the article must support the view of the headline of the said piece. Making it clear that the relationship between player and manager was not an amicable one cannot be seen as defamatory as it is intently based upon a foundation of hearsay and speculation. What makes this story to be construed as defamatory occurs after the headline, in the third paragraph in (a) “Mourinho holds Terry responsible for charges levelled by Chelsea’s board of directors that he had lost the support of his playing staff after Tuesday’s Champion’s league draw with Rosenborg…” (Castles 23rd Sept 2007) It then continues to the fourth paragraph (b) when it says that “a dressing room source” claimed that Terry declined to take part in a pre match warm up but when finally persuaded to, arrived late. The fifth paragraph (c) claims that when criticised for his defending at half time by Mourinho, Terry refused to respond or accept responsibility. Finally in the 7th paragraph (d), Castles states that Chelsea’s chief executive Peter Kenyon “was made aware of the dispute” who then provided this information in a board meeting “as evidence that the manager had lost the trust of key players”, and soon after Mourinho was dismissed. I shall illustrate why these four points labelled (a) to (d) can be considered defamatory as defined by the law. Points labelled (a) to (d) chronicle a series of events involving Terry and Mourinho that emphasise tension and disagreements between the two. The final point: (d), in the context of the other points, justifies the story as defamatory, for it indirectly concludes that conflict between manager and player, resulted in Mourinho’s dismissal as a result of this conflict, and John Terry being held responsible. This may constitute John Terry’s name to be tarnished amongst supporters of the club as the article clearly indicates Terry undermining the boss. As a defence, the Observer could use freedom of speech or expression, supported by the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives the journalist and publisher the right to communicate information and the right to comment. The defendant’s case would be that, information of Mourinho’s departure should be made accessible to the public, especially those who support and pay money to watch Chelsea football club. The second story of my legal report where I will assess how it may be construed as defamatory is the article “Indian Slave children making low-cost clothes destined for Gap” by Dan McDougall in “The Observer” (extract 2). The alleged defamatory statements occur in the first, second and fifth paragraphs, where as part of an investigation conducted by the “The Observer’” McDougal states that child workers (some as young as 10) were found working in textile factories to make clothes destined for ‘Gap’. He goes on to claim that the child workers were subjected to threats and beatings, and were working in “filthy working conditions”. This can be considered as defamatory as defined by the law, as it can damage the reputation of the company of Gap, by professing they use child labour to produce garments for sale. This will consequently cause potential customers to shun the store due to ethical reasons and therefore the store will lose business and its status. In this circumstance the defences available to the publisher if a libel case for defamation was brought against them would be whether they could prove the allegations were true. If so they would have a substantial case or defence. Mc Nae declared that a claimant “does not have to prove that a statement is false. If a statement is defamatory, the court assumes it is false. If the statement is in fact true and the journalist can prove it is true he has a defence” (McNae 2005, p 213). In this instance it would probably determined whether the would-be defamatory statements are true because McDougal’s article states that it is based upon an Observer investigation. The final article of my legal report that can be construed as defamatory was the article “Accusations fly as pro-life groups clash” (Doward, J 28th Otober 2007). The article comments on an anti- abortion group called ‘Life League’ and James Dowson, the groups founder and public face; and the defamatory statements are aimed at both parties. Doward claims that Dowson had published the home addresses of abortion clinic staff. It insinuates that Dowson lied about being a protestant minister and living in Scotland. It also raises concerns about what the ‘Life League’ does with donations from the public with Doward saying: “The Life league’s website pledges to spend donations ‘wisely’, but tracing where the money goes is difficult”. As defined by the law these statements are defamatory for it puts James Dowson and the Life League in a bad light. It transpires to Dowson and Life League as untrustworthy; lying about his personal life, and being secretive about donated money, and shows Dowson as using underhand tactics.
