Read on Twitter
Allegations of abuse (and whether to publish claims of them) = a huge ethical + legal dilemma for journalists and news outlets.
Especially when alleged incidents have occurred behind closed doors.
The ‘truth -> burden of proof on the publisher’ can be extremely challenging.
Especially when alleged incidents have occurred behind closed doors.
The ‘truth -> burden of proof on the publisher’ can be extremely challenging.
.... There is a massive financial risk - especially when the subject of allegations is a rich and famous person, and their reputation will inevitably be seriously damaged, and they may be very likely to try and sue you....
My students are often (mostly) tend to want to ensure victims of alleged abuse have their voices & stories heard.
But they also worry about libel. A LOT.
Especially when it’s explained to them that alleged abusers / people accused can sue you for publishing those claims.
But they also worry about libel. A LOT.
Especially when it’s explained to them that alleged abusers / people accused can sue you for publishing those claims.
In fact (and I think this is in light of #MeToo 
and other movements) my journalism students tend to want to instinctively pursue a position of :
“We ALWAYS believe claimants” & view this as being ethical.
I then have to explain the Defamation Act & their responsibilities.
and other movements) my journalism students tend to want to instinctively pursue a position of :“We ALWAYS believe claimants” & view this as being ethical.
I then have to explain the Defamation Act & their responsibilities.
They (rightly) worry about how they can provide sufficient evidence to support publishing allegations of abuse (especially if it’s a rich & powerful person/behind doors)
We examine the defences together (see the BBC article). We also discus how it’s a subjective risk decision.
We examine the defences together (see the BBC article). We also discus how it’s a subjective risk decision.
Inevitably we end up discussing Jimmy Saville.
His abuses weren’t widely published/broadcast til after his death (dead people can’t sue for libel).
It opens up broader questions of truth, justice, power & ethics.
What’s “legally safe”?
What’s “morally right”? Etc.
It’s tough!
His abuses weren’t widely published/broadcast til after his death (dead people can’t sue for libel).
It opens up broader questions of truth, justice, power & ethics.
What’s “legally safe”?
What’s “morally right”? Etc.
It’s tough!
To conclude:
(& I’m deliberately keeping these points broad)
Many of my students are anxious about being sued for libel when trying to give a platform to the voices of victims.
Every case must be carefully considered: rights, risks & responsibilities.
(& I’m deliberately keeping these points broad)
Many of my students are anxious about being sued for libel when trying to give a platform to the voices of victims.
Every case must be carefully considered: rights, risks & responsibilities.
Whether they even go on to become journalists or not, a deeper understanding of media law and ethics sets them up well for discussions (as I said) on broader issues - power, responsibility, justice, victimisation, truth & silence.
Even if it’s just for the ol’ Twitter debates.
Even if it’s just for the ol’ Twitter debates.
A part of me wonders whether every time a news outlet gets sued for publishing abuse allegations by a rich & powerful person - there may be a journalist somewhere that thinks:
“I’d better steer clear of that Weinstein-esque story. All we have to go on is claimants’ word for it”
“I’d better steer clear of that Weinstein-esque story. All we have to go on is claimants’ word for it”
