Journalists?

[Captain Canada]

With all the made up stories in the Daily Record about player strikes etc this week I was wondering how this differs from personal defamation cases.

 

For example if they printed a story about a celebrity being a junky and it wasn't true then that person could rightly sue them.

 

So when they write stuff about Hearts or any other club that has no basis in fact is this allowed legally? Surely football is a business too and I doubt they'd get away with printing a story about a PLC saying their staff were going to strike if it simply wasn't true.

 

Transfer rumours and stuff are obviously slightly different but the articles this week have been damaging and were completely untrue. Could anything be done by the club about this?

[monkfish1979]

Here's a wee bit of info - from an english law firm, but I doubt that things would be hugely different up here. Probably many folk on here more informed than I, though.

[Captain Canada]

Cheers, this bit sounds interesting

 

It held that “The good name of a company as that of an individual is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even its own staff make people less ready to deal with it, less willing or less proud to work for it. If this were not so corporations would not go to the lengths that they do to protect and burnish their corporate images.”

 

The Court also recognised the difficulty sometimes that a company can have in actually showing that contracts have been lost or potential clients put off as a result of a publication. Also, if a defendant does publish an apology reasonably quickly this may stop actual financial loss but may still lead to the company facing damage to its reputation.

 

The House of Lords however did hold that if there was no financial loss the damages awarded should be kept strictly within modest bounds.

[Denny Crane]

With all the made up stories in the Daily Record about player strikes etc this week I was wondering how this differs from personal defamation cases.

 

For example if they printed a story about a celebrity being a junky and it wasn't true then that person could rightly sue them.

 

So when they write stuff about Hearts or any other club that has no basis in fact is this allowed legally? Surely football is a business too and I doubt they'd get away with printing a story about a PLC saying their staff were going to strike if it simply wasn't true.

 

Transfer rumours and stuff are obviously slightly different but the articles this week have been damaging and were completely untrue. Could anything be done by the club about this?

 

 

I suspect the club would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a publication has defamed them and that said publication's sources were misleading (which may be harder to back up as many courts/judges across the UK have upheld a publication's right not to name their sources if they came to them in the strictest of confidence and requested that their personal details be kept confidential).

[Seymour M Hersh]

Papers in this situation (players strike poop mixing) will run articles by their lawyers to make sure they are not in any danger. I think they will keep it vague enough to avoid law suits as well. We've all see the xyz "understands" or a source said. Non attributable stuff.

[yvonnejambo]

A full back page apology by the record would be nice.

[topcat]

A journalist's source cannot usually be named, even in court, unless it is a matter of national security or something similarly vital.

 

So a paper could probably withstand an action by the club. I'm unsure on which element of defamation Hearts would have a case as well (simply because I've only ever looked over cases involving a single complainer as opposed to a whole company).

 

The damage done is to Hearts' reputation as being a creditworthy company to do business with. Over the last week it would have been very tricky for Hearts to do business with suppliers who would have been in doubt as to whether this customer would still be around to pay them.

 

Given the level of hype that was created some of that mud is going to stick but it remains to be seen how seriously people take the Daily Record. It may blow over or we may see a situation in the next transfer window where Hearts are unable to buy players on the kind of s'ome cash now, some later deal' that is common in the industry. We may find that players who read these reports are wary of coming to Hearts anyway.

 

Clearly damage has been done but whether it's significant enough to be worth proceeding with will not become clear until later.

 

Even if they were to take action the Record have probably been carefull enough to only print things that are true in such a way as to let their readers draw their own sensationalist conclusion; Hearts have missed a wage run, Gretna missed a wage run just before they went bust, The banking sector is in trouble, Vlad owns a bank etc...

 

Combing through the coverage might unearth a minor defamatory slip but chances are their lawyers have been smart enough to stop that happening and it's questionable whether fighting a court case over a minor technicality would achieve anything anyway.

[Peebo]

A tabloid newspaper being brought to book in a scottish court over a speculative article regarding a football club? I've heard it all now.

[pennantjambo]

Let the weegie press and pundits spout their pesh about Hearts, it will only make us stronger. (Siege mentality.)

 

Epic fuds, every one of them.

[The Laughing Goalie]

I suspect the club would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a publication has defamed them and that said publication's sources were misleading (which may be harder to back up as many courts/judges across the UK have upheld a publication's right not to name their sources if they came to them in the strictest of confidence and requested that their personal details be kept confidential).

 

As it would be a civil case the standard of proof would only be 'on the balance of probabilities'. Therefore only a 51-49% result would be a victory. It is only in criminal cases where the standard of proof has to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

A journalists source can be named in court and can give evidence in court. This is usually done at an extra-ordinary hearing where there are only certain people present and strict conditions are laid out in respect of the subsequent naming of a source.

[blondejamtart]

Yes, but there have been occasion where journalists have gone to prison rather than name their sources...

[The Laughing Goalie]

Yes, but there have been occasion where journalists have gone to prison rather than name their sources...

 

Yes, that's true. However, a judge can issue a warrant for the actual newspaper company to issue the name and details of the source. It is now not the case that a journalists' source belongs to himself. The source is now 'owned' be the newspaper company. This came about as the source is owed a duty of care by the newspaper rather than the journalist as they could not offer the required insurance protection financially.

[blondejamtart]

I am aware of that - but surely it is still the case that a journalist, if he or she felt strongly enough about the matter, could refuse to reveal their source even to their employer?

[jamcow1]

Let the weegie press and pundits spout their pesh about Hearts, it will only make us stronger. (Siege mentality.)

 

Epic fuds, every one of them.

 

exactly!!! im just not going to read the fegen thing any more, at the end of the day the rest of the country can believe the crap it prints if they want, it dosnt affect us cuz im sure most hearts supporters no they talk crap

[hawaii]

Anyone see the parallels between us & The Record and Celtic & Setanta??

 

I know that the owners of Setanta are Celtic fans but to bow down to Strachan like that is just plain embarrassing.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Yes, that's true. However, a judge can issue a warrant for the actual newspaper company to issue the name and details of the source. It is now not the case that a journalists' source belongs to himself. The source is now 'owned' be the newspaper company. This came about as the source is owed a duty of care by the newspaper rather than the journalist as they could not offer the required insurance protection financially.

 

There is at least one "journo"from the DR who would cancel his summer holidays if he was offered the chance to be locked up with a hairy ersed convict

[blondejamtart]

There is at least one "journo"from the DR who would cancel his summer holidays if he was offered the chance to be locked up with a hairy ersed convict

 

Only one? You do surprise me!!

[hawaii]

I'm more surprised about the Daily Record employing journalists

 

Surely some mistake

[Ben Dover]

Would you have to raise a case over a particular article / statement though ?

I think what we'd like to see is a quiet word from somebody ( who ? ) asking them to just take a less aggressive tone in their articles and do a bit less scaremongering !

Sort of thing where bammy neighbours haven't commited a crime as such but are told by the Police to cool it, go back indoors........and dont make us have to come round again ?

[Thig Ar Latha]

A full back page apology by the record would be nice.

 

I would take that as seriously as any Record story.

[The Laughing Goalie]

I am aware of that - but surely it is still the case that a journalist, if he or she felt strongly enough about the matter, could refuse to reveal their source even to their employer?

 

The journalists have to reveal to their employer the details of their sources for them to be protected in the proper fashion. The newspaper cannot accept responsibility of someone that they do not know about. Equally, they cannot let a story run unless they have two pieces of evidence to cover them in civil cases. The editor will ask the journo where is sources are and if they have been logged with the relevant department. If the journo says 'yes' and this is a lie the journo himself will be liable for the well-being off that source which will result in him paying a fine in the regions of millions should his protection be jeopordised and possibly a jail term. The actual offence will be 'in contempt of court' if the judge asks him to identify the source and he refuses to do so. This does not tend to lead to years and years in prison as the source system is a fundemental part of the reporting process and the legal system understands this. What is more of a threat to the journo is that no other newspaper will want to risk employing a 'risky' employee who could land the company in serious trouble. He/she would also face a very, very difficult financial situation due to the hefty fine.