Reynolds Defence - Journalism and Media Reporting - Essay Example

Reynolds Defence (Journalism and Media Reporting) Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction In the contemporary society, freedom of speech and expression is highly regarded, and the field of journalism and media is playing a central role in ensuring that whatever information that is of public interest is searched and communicated. However, what is emerging as the biggest challenge for many of the nations is the enactment of policy legislations that ensure that individual rights are not infringed in the process. For example, while it is recognized that some crimes are very serious and heavily punished, it is becoming an issue to say or mention in public the person that has been offended (Atton 2003). For instance in the United Kingdom, the law highly restricts identifying in public the victims of sexual violence when reporting about the same, either in court or in public. This is attributed to the fact that some cases related to sexual violence and abuse are not reported because of the fear that the offended will be known to the public. However, this is not the case with the offenders. They normally get identified in the public even though their cases have not been proved and determined thus leading to the question of imbalance in the application of the law regulating journalism and reporting (Callamard 2006). In this essay, to comprehensively tackle the question of right to freedom of expression and the protection of Journalism, Reynolds defence will be applied. Defamation and libel “Defamation which in law also referred as calumny, traducement and slander which stands for transitory statements and libel for written and even broadcast or published words is used to describe the communication of a particular statement which makes a particular claim that is expressly stated or even implied. The purpose of the statement is to give an individual, entity, product, government, group or even a nation a negative image (Woods 2006, p. 371-401). It can also be a statement made by an individual about another person either through communication or publication despite of its state whether true or not depending on the state of the law. According to the common law, it is a requirement that this is a false claim. In journalism and reporting, this terminology is applicable in the sense that a lot of information is reported to the public about different events and situations as a result of the data that has been collected from various sources which to the journalists’ discretion are reliable. It is from this angle that freedom of expression and protection of journalists is becoming an issue in the contemporary society because it will affect the process of accessing information by the public (TakingITGlobal 2008). However, most important is the credibility of the information brought by the journalists into the public limelight. To illustrate how this concept is being applied, the case of Reynolds Defence has been considered very satisfactorily (Barendt 2005). Since in the United Kingdom the law restricts the media on identifying victims of certain offenses like sexual offense, it is now emerging that more litigants and especially from the side of the plaintiffs are likely to be attracted because the law does not protect media when they fail to observe the law on media and report on certain victims in the public. Public interest According to Morrison and Svennevig (2002), the term public interest has no specific definition and therefore can be defined in relation to a given context. However, in journalism and in media reporting, the duo is of the view that public interest is any information that the public is real eager to access and give their own interpretation and analysis on a particular subject. In such a case, it becomes therefore absolutely necessary for the media to behave professionally and ensure that any information that is provided into the public is not defame and libel in any way as presented in Robertson and Nicol (2008). This is especially important in the case of the United Kingdom where media protection is limited. Reynolds Defence case overview Reynolds Defence in the United Kingdom has been established to help defend the journalists against libel claims in which information is in the public interest as long as the publisher is understood to have acted in a responsible manner. With Reynolds Defence, the journalists are allowed to publish any information in the public domain irrespective of defame or as long as they do so in a responsible way. This goes a long way to reaffirm the idea that media protection is especially important when it comes to reporting into issues of public interest. The Reynolds Defence has been as a result of the Right to Freedom of Expression as provided for in the European Human Rights Convention before it could later be enshrined into the United Kingdom Human Rights Act of 1997 (Woods 2006). This was so because the Reynolds Defence is designed in such a way that it seeks to protect those journalists who are real very serious and very investigative and who act in a responsible way to report on matters of public interest and concern. Most important to note with the Reynolds is the fact that even when the allegations made are false and highly damaging if published, the publisher still can make use of this defence. This encourages the journalists to act with more vigor and comfort when reporting to the public as long as they do so in a responsible manner and this can be demonstrated in various cases which have been determined in reference to Reynolds Defence. On the other hand however, the Reynolds Defence has been used as an important tool in journalism and media reporting in delaying, if not preventing and publishing of defamatory allegations (Frost 2010). This is because the journalists are forced to act professionally and at the same time, take their time to ensure that whatever is fed into the public is of worth, public interest and responsible. Important about Reynolds Defence First and most important thing that should be noted about the Reynolds Defence is the role that it has played in protecting journalism. This is after recognizing the role it plays in the society especially in bringing into public issues that may be of great interest like terrorism, rape, election interference and corruption by senior state officials. This is because some of the information is very important for the society to interpret and make informed decisions and also be in a position to understand why a particular issue is the way it is (Schillings 2009). The enshrining of the Reynolds Defence has created room for the court to interpret and explain what is of public interests and the privileges the journalists enjoy while investing and reporting important matters into the public. This can be seen from a number of cases that have presided over by the court and ruled in favor of the journalists. Case 1: JAMEEL & ORS V WALL STREET JOURNAL SPRL EUROPE [2006] The first and most important case where Reynolds Defence played a very significant role in its ruling is the case between Jameel and ORS v Wall Street Journal in 2006. This was an important case and the first one of its kind to decided in reference to the Reynolds Defence. In the case, The Wall Street Journal Europe (WSJE) had published certain information alleging that Jameel was involved in direct funding of terrorism and that he had links with Osama bin Laden most wanted world terrorist (Schillings 2009). Despite, realizing that the information that was published by WSJE was mere allegations, the court law lords in the United Kingdom, could not rule in favor of Jameel (Bowcott 2012). The major reason being the way the journalists carried out their investigation and the interest the public had on the issue. This further demonstrated that irrespective of the kind of information that is being published in public, the law recognizes how important the work of the journalists are to the society and the right they have in freely expressing themselves (Robertson and Nicol 2008). Further, the ruling in favor of WSJE could be a factor of challenges that the journalists go through before coming up with such crucial information. For example, the Reynolds test which provides for ten important steps which have to be cleared before publishing any information. What this implies therefore is that, to have reached a point where the journalists can publish such important information, they must have acted responsibly and by all means Reynolds Defence can be relied on in determining the case. Case 2: FLOOD V TIMES NEWSPAPERS [2009] This is one of the most recent cases that have been determined in reference to Reynolds Defence. The case concerns the online publication of information that could later be determined as false. In the case, The Times Newspapers had been sued in court for giving false information about Gary Flood and his involvement in the leakage of Home Office extradition documents on the most wanted criminals from Russia. Even though Gary was under investigation by the time publication was done, which established that in no way Gary had been involved, the case could not be ruled in favor of him (Bowcott 2012). This is one of the cases that have been a major reference in demonstrating how public interest applies in journalism and media reporting. This is because even after the court had established that Gary was not involved in the case, it was held that, the issue was of great public interest and that could comfortably rely on Reynolds Defence. This is because, first, the public wanted to know more about the person and that the journalists had acted responsibly in publishing the information (Gearon 2006). However, what could emerge later on is that, after the report had found that Gary was not involved in the alleged crime, the Times Newspaper, could not remove the already online deposited publication as was no longer of public interest but image damage for public figures. What this depicts in journalism and reporting is that, reporting what is of public interest is allowed irrespective of its state as long as the publisher acts responsibly (Frost 2010). Reynolds Defence has had a very significant contribution in the way in which the journals have continued to do their work and reporting. This is because the Reynolds Defence has set out ten-important test points for responsible journalism. The test points are clearly outlined in the defence against George Galloway’s libel claim in 1999 and judged by Lord Nicholls. In the case, George Galloway had a libel claim against The Daily Telegraph. However, in this case what came to emerge as an important aspect of public interest and media protection is how the news firm relied on the concept of responsible journalism as established in the Reynolds Defence. To be noted however, before this case is that, journalism and media houses and in particular newspapers, had suffered a great deal for failing to prove that whatever information they publish was factual or true in that sense (Barendt 2005). Majority of the Newspapers before the Reynolds’ case ruling in 1999, had to pay huge sums of money as damages to libel claimants for publishing reports which they did not have evidence to support as true. The ruling of the case between Albert Reynolds and The Sunday Times in 1999 and whose judgment was led by Lord Nicholls, was very significant in the field of journalism and media reporting. This is because it came to elaborate on the concept of public interest and responsible journalism. From this time onwards, it can be argued that Reynolds Defence has had some influence in the way journalists are doing their job today. This is because newspapers are protected under what is termed as public interest. In other words, newspapers are protected from any kind of liability from whatever information they publish as long as they act responsibly and also provide the information which the public has the right to know (Hackett & Carroll 2006). Reynolds privilege, a concept that was introduced during the case, is nowadays used to protect all news firms that act responsibly from any kind of libel claim even if they are not in a position to prove the truth behind their publication or not (Kyu Ho & Ahran 2010). Over years, Reynolds privilege has been considered as a “qualified” privilege and has operated like a defence in libel. This is to protect creator or the originator of defamatory statement as long as he has the right and a legal duty to do a communication of certain information to the person that has the interest of receiving it (Rozenberg 2004). Looking at how this ruling has come to be so famous in journalism and media reporting, it is important to note that today unlike before, journalists are likely to bring into public more information as opposed to the past as long as they do so in a responsible manner and in the interest of the public (Hackett & Carroll 2006). While reading the judgment law, lords on the case between Reynolds and The Sunday Times, Lord Nicholls identified 10 important factors to be considered by the courts when trying to establish whether the qualified privilege should be made available or not. The 10 example factors to be considered include: 1. The serious of an allegation 2. The nature of the information, and the level to which the information is of interest to the public 3. The source of information 4. The steps taken by the journalist to verify any information given 5. The status of the information 6. Urgency required of the matter 7. If the suggestion was received from the claimant 8. Whether the information in the article has the gist of the complainant part of the story 9. The article tone 10. Circumstances surrounding the publication which include its timing While recognizing the need to have the 10 points considered by the courts when determining whether qualified privileges should be available, Lord Nicholls, decided to clarify that in no way the common law was seeking to set higher standards than those expected of responsible journalism, but the standard the news people themselves espouse. For example in the case between Reynolds and The Sunday Times, the newspaper lost the appeal since the information published did not have the prime minister’s part of the story. This therefore implies that even though the information published may be of public interest, responsibility is equally important. This therefore calls for the need to do a responsible work by journalists before publishing any information that is of public interest as argued by Kyu Ho & Ahran (2010). Conclusion In the essay, a number of issues have discussed in relation to freedom of speech and expression and how journalism and media reporting is playing a very significant role in bringing different pieces of information into the public domain. However, much emphasis has been on how the UK policy has enshrined the Reynolds Defence which in the contemporary society is playing a crucial role in influencing how journalists are doing their work. The case of Reynolds and The Sunday Times has been very fundamental in the policy governing media reporting today. This is because it recognizes journalism as a very important field and seeks to protect the work of the journalists as long as they behave responsibly. The 10 points outlined in the case of Reynolds are very fundamental because they raise some of ethical issues like information verification and hearing the claimant side of the story before publishing any information. In general, what should happen is for the newspapers to adopt a neutral reportage which ensures good balance between public interest and responsibility so as to be able to access qualified privileges if issued for libels. References Allan, T 2000, ‘Common Law Constitutionalism and Freedom of Speech’ in J. Beatson and Y. Cripps, ‘Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information’, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Atton, C 2003, Reshaping social movement media for a new millennium. Social Movement Studies, 2(1), p. 3-15. Banks, D and Hanna, M 1992, Essential Law, United Kingdom, McNae. Barendt, E 2005, Freedom of Speech, 2nd. Ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bowcott, O 2012, The gurdian: Times libel ruling restores Reynolds public interest defence, 21st March 2012, available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/21/times- libel-reynolds-defence Callamard, A 2006, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19, “Key Note Speech, Osce Supplementary Meeting Freedom of Media: Protection of Journalists and Access to Information”, 13-14 July 2006, 2, http://www.article19.org/pdfs/conferences/human-security-speech.pdf Frost, C 2010, Journalism ethics, Longman, London Gearon, L 2006, Freedom of Expression and Human Rights, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton. Hackett, R & Carroll, W 2006, Remaking media: The struggle to democratize public communication. New York: Routledge. Kyu Ho, Y & Ahran, P 2010, "South Korea," in Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy 1343-47, Alastair Mullis & Cameron Doley, South Korea. Robertson, G and Nicol, A 2008, Media law, Penguin Books, United Kingdom Rozenberg, J 2004, The Telegraph: Ten-point test of responsible journalism, retrieved on 29th December 2012, available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476714/Ten-point-test-of-responsible- journalism.html Schillings, H 2009, Stop the press: the Reynolds defence, retrieved on 30th December 2012, available online: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/media-entertainment-a- sport/7676-stop-the-pressthe-reynolds-defence Šefic, B 2005, Head of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Counterterrorism, Republic of Slovenia, “OSCE Supplementary Meeting on “Human Rights and The Fight Against terrorism””, Viennea 14-15 July 2005, http://www.sova.gov.si/media/osce_2005_human_rights_terrorism.pdf TakingITGlobal, 2008, Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, viewed on 30th December 2012 http://www.takingitglobal.org/themes/udhr60/ Woods, L 2006, ‘Freedom of Expression in the European Union’, 12 EPL 371-401 Read More