Everything printed in newspapers is true. At least, that is what most of the general public believes. Sometimes, however, journalists there are exceptions to this statement. Whether the journalist is misinformed or maliciously ignores the facts in order to create a juicy story, some articles are published with less than truthful information. This creates a bit of a quandary in the world of journalism, forcing the public to determine what is real and what is false. In order to protect the false printing of information, libel laws for publication have emerged. Libel law protects people from defamation, and it remains one of the biggest legal issues facing journalists today.
A form of defamation, libel is written word that causes injury to ones reputation. Libel is a hot button issue facing journalists because not only do they have to make sure what they write is truthful, but they are also responsible for information they quote from others. According to the AP Stylebook, “A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim” (AP 384). Journalists are responsible for not only checking their own facts, but also for checking the facts of all others appearing in their article. This makes for extra work and diligence on the part of the reporter.
The courts require five standards of proof in order to convict a journalist of libel. This five prong test gives some protection back to the journalists. First, it must be proven that the printed defamatory statement was indeed made, and not simply implied. Second, the statement must be a factual statement rather than a statement of opinion. Opinion is protected, falsifying fact is not. Also, the statement in question must actually be false. A libel claim cannot be made if the information is simply embarrassing, but truthful nonetheless. The statement must also be directly of or concerning the person bringing the libel suit to court. Finally, it must be proven that the statement was published with “the requisite degree of fault” (AP 385), meaning there was some sort of negligence or actual malice involved with the printing.
While libel itself is a complicated legal issue in journalism, it becomes even more complicated when discussing private versus public figures. Each level of status requires a different level of proof. It is much harder for public officials and public figures to win a libel suit in comparison to private individuals. Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice, while private individuals must only prove negligence. Negligence, simply put, it when false information is printed without the knowledge that it was actually false. Actual malice means that there was prior knowledge of falsity before printing. Two Supreme Court cases helped form this libel law, Gertz v. Welch 418 U.S. 323 (1974) and New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In the Gertz case, it was determined just exactly what kinds of people qualify as public as opposed to private, and further explained the actual malice versus negligence decision established by the New York Times ruling.
Journalists face many legal and moral issues in everyday society. They must act legal and lawfully in everything they do. Libel law is one of the biggest legal issues facing journalists in today’s society. If violated, journalists not only risk major financial lawsuits, but are more than likely face losing their jobs as well. Libel law makes fact checking one of the most important aspects of writing a news story.
Gertz v. Welch http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319884256&homeCsi=152583&A=0.8034961933612275&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=418%20U.S.%20323&countryCode=USA
New York Times v. Sullivan
http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319903296&homeCsi=6320&A=0.6559475672726641&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=376%20U.S.%20254&countryCode=USA
Christian, Darrell, Jacobsen, Sally, Minthorn, David, Eds. Associated Press 2009 Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. New York: The Associated Press, 2009. Print.
A form of defamation, libel is written word that causes injury to ones reputation. Libel is a hot button issue facing journalists because not only do they have to make sure what they write is truthful, but they are also responsible for information they quote from others. According to the AP Stylebook, “A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim” (AP 384). Journalists are responsible for not only checking their own facts, but also for checking the facts of all others appearing in their article. This makes for extra work and diligence on the part of the reporter.
The courts require five standards of proof in order to convict a journalist of libel. This five prong test gives some protection back to the journalists. First, it must be proven that the printed defamatory statement was indeed made, and not simply implied. Second, the statement must be a factual statement rather than a statement of opinion. Opinion is protected, falsifying fact is not. Also, the statement in question must actually be false. A libel claim cannot be made if the information is simply embarrassing, but truthful nonetheless. The statement must also be directly of or concerning the person bringing the libel suit to court. Finally, it must be proven that the statement was published with “the requisite degree of fault” (AP 385), meaning there was some sort of negligence or actual malice involved with the printing.
While libel itself is a complicated legal issue in journalism, it becomes even more complicated when discussing private versus public figures. Each level of status requires a different level of proof. It is much harder for public officials and public figures to win a libel suit in comparison to private individuals. Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice, while private individuals must only prove negligence. Negligence, simply put, it when false information is printed without the knowledge that it was actually false. Actual malice means that there was prior knowledge of falsity before printing. Two Supreme Court cases helped form this libel law, Gertz v. Welch 418 U.S. 323 (1974) and New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In the Gertz case, it was determined just exactly what kinds of people qualify as public as opposed to private, and further explained the actual malice versus negligence decision established by the New York Times ruling.
Journalists face many legal and moral issues in everyday society. They must act legal and lawfully in everything they do. Libel law is one of the biggest legal issues facing journalists in today’s society. If violated, journalists not only risk major financial lawsuits, but are more than likely face losing their jobs as well. Libel law makes fact checking one of the most important aspects of writing a news story.
Gertz v. Welch http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319884256&homeCsi=152583&A=0.8034961933612275&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=418%20U.S.%20323&countryCode=USA
New York Times v. Sullivan
http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319903296&homeCsi=6320&A=0.6559475672726641&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=376%20U.S.%20254&countryCode=USA
Christian, Darrell, Jacobsen, Sally, Minthorn, David, Eds. Associated Press 2009 Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. New York: The Associated Press, 2009. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment