TOPIC FIVE

ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN JOURNALISM: ACCURACY AND DEFAMATION

1. ACCURACY

Accuracy is more important than ever for journalists – A Journalist’s View:

“Accuracy has always been right at the top of the list of journalism values and
priorities.

Except when I saw friends lose their jobs (and sometimes, had to deliver that news
myself) or had to write about horrible tragedies, the sickest feelings I have had in this
business were when I got my facts wrong. It didn’t happen often, but each time, I
brutalized myself with second-guessing and figured out how to prevent it from
happening again (and committed to ensure it wouldn’t happen again).

I don’t know how accuracy gets more important than that, but it has actually grown in
importance. The public has more potential sources of information than ever
today. Almost any path you can imagine for media companies to find our way to a
prosperous future, starts with being a trusted source for information.

Two embarrassing failures this decade damaged the trustworthiness of the New York
Times:

Jayson Blair got away with one of the most egregious sprees of fabrication and
plagiarism in journalism history (a scandal made more embarrassing by the
revelation that he had a shameful record of errors and corrections).

Times reporters, most notably Judith Miller, were played by the Bush administration
and Iraqi expatriates during the run-up to the war in Iraq, publishing unreliable
accounts about intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass
destruction and failing to report the doubts that many within the intelligence
community had about those accounts. (Knight Ridder reported on these
doubts, proving that good reporters could get that story.)”

A media organisation will be judged on the accuracy and reliability of the journalism it
produces. That journalism must be well-sourced, supported by strong evidence,
examined and tested, clear and unambiguous.

Accuracy is at the core of what we do. We do our best to ensure that everything we
report faithfully depicts reality – from the tiniest detail to the big-picture context that
helps put the news into perspective. Facts are incredibly slippery.

1
Studies of press accuracy routinely find mistakes – sometimes many of them – in
news media reports. This means that when journalists – even the best ones – think
they’re getting it right, they’re all too often wrong.

Errors are inevitable. But our best defense against them is constant vigilance. This is
why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting
public.

Verified facts must form the basis of all news, not rumour and speculation. We need
to be totally transparent in declaring what we know and what we don’t know.

a. Speed And Accuracy

The increased speed in which news organizations gather and publish content is one
of the most notable changes and challenges for digital organizations today.

An over-focus on speed without respect for accuracy leads to problems, often quite
public problems, for careless news organizations. Our ability to identify information
and publish it quickly has sometimes outstripped our collective journalism judgement.

However, there is a reason that the speed-to-publish is a key part of journalism…our

focus on speed is the result of an abundance of riches. The sheer amount of
observers with social media accounts, cameras and audio devices pointed at every
news event happening in the world gives reporters and editors the ability to access,
and then rocket content around the world.

And this 24/7 ‘unblinking eye’ has brought us iconic real-time images of news events
that we would never have seen before. So, sometimes speed is the point.

The speed in which journalists and the audience itself have facilitated the publishing
of raw content has acted as a powerful witness to important events. Events that only
a few years before would have been hidden behind a veil of geography.

In this case immediacy and realism – being THERE – is true journalism. The editorial
judgement was simply to point the camera and not interpret the events at the time.

But there are downsides to the speed without journalistic curators and editorial
judgement.

In the US for the Boston Bombing it was Pete Williams of NBC news who brought a
strong journalistic perspective to rapidly evolving events. And for the Arab Spring, for
Twitter audience, it was Andy Carvin at NPR.

Both of these journalists, whether doing original reporting or curating actual and
supposed eyewitness or exclusive information stopped to ask the all-important
question: “Do we have another source?” “Can we corroborate that?”

2
Case Study 1

Coverage Of The Arizona Shooting Rampage:

No recent mistake has done more to highlight how important it is to confirm

information that may cause grief with multiple, authoritative sources than NPR’s
erroneous report that Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) was killed during a Jan. 8,
2011, shooting rampage in Tucson.

The mistakes that were made have been detailed and the ripple effects as the
news spread via social media sites have been analyzed by social media
strategist, Andy Carvin.

Here’s where we went wrong:

The initial sources were officials in the local sheriff’s office and one of his
station’s reporters. But we did not press the critical issue of whether these
sources had direct knowledge of Giffords’s condition or were just passing along
what they had heard.

We also did not determine whether the sources themselves might have been
relying on a single person for their information. Even if we talk to many people
about something or cite multiple other media reports, if they are all relying on
the same single source for their information that should be a red flag warning us
to hold off.

When we did get word from what we thought was a credible “second source,” it
was a member of Congress (who was in Washington, not Arizona), who told a
correspondent that he had heard Giffords was dead. Again, we did not
determine if the lawmaker had any direct knowledge.

We did not wait to get confirmation from any of the “primary” sources that must
be contacted before reporting an individual’s death: the person’s family (or a
family spokesman) and officials (if they have direct knowledge and are
authorized to speak) at the hospital.

Senior editors were not drawn into the decision-making process before the
news was broadcast. Involving them in the decision-making would have slowed
things down — exactly what was needed at that moment, as an offset to our
natural instinct to want to be “timely” with important news.

3
Case Study 2

Coverage of the attacks in Norway:

On the air and online on July 22, 2011, when an explosion in Oslo was followed
by reports of a gunman attacking a youth conference on a nearby island, we
were careful to report only what we could reasonably assure listeners and
readers was the best, most authoritative information at the time.

We reminded them many times that events were unfolding rapidly and that there
was much that wasn’t known. As information changed, we explained what was
new. And we provided attribution for every important detail.

By midday there were many tweets and other social media postings about a
shooting spree at the island. But we focused our first update about that situation
on what we could say regarding what officials knew:

Aftenposten now writes that ‘TV2 News channel reported that police also have
received notification of a critical situation on Utoya, where Labour Youth is
holding its annual summer camp.’ Journalist Ketil B. Stensrud messages that
the prime minister has said on Norwegian radio ‘there is a critical situation at
Utoya and several ongoing operations as we speak.’

Utoya is an island in a fjord about 45 minutes from Oslo.

And we followed soon after with more information and cautionary language:

The Associated Press just moved this alert: ‘Norway Labor Party spokesman
tells AP several people shot at youth camp outside Oslo.’

Norway’s Varden newspaper is quoting a local ‘county secretary’ as saying he

saw four people got shot there.

Norway’s NRK news says that terrified campers are texting and tweeting that
they are hiding. There are also reports of some trying to swim to safety.

It’s important to remember that at this point, much is not known about what’s
happening in Norway - for instance, whether the explosion (or explosions) in
Oslo are related to the reported attack on the youth camp.

And we did not report there was a link between the incidents until there was
official word:

‘It is now clear that there is a connection between the explosions in the city
center’ and the shootings at a youth camp on the nearby island of Utoya, police
tell Norway’s NRK news.

4
Accuracy is at the heart of what we do. It is our job to get it first but it is above all our
job, to get it right. Accuracy, as well as balance, always takes precedence over
speed.

Accuracy comes ahead of speed. If you are not sure, stop. Being first and wrong is
not a model to aim for. Being right, always reliable and measured, is.

Those who trust you will be prepared to wait for your version. In fact they might use
your coverage to check whether a hastily prepared item by a competitor has any truth
in it.

Caution is particularly needed if the topic is controversial. In such cases, too much
haste can cause lasting damage to your news brand. Most major news providers
require:

 first-hand sources
 double-checking of facts
 validation of material submitted
 confirmation via two reliable sources
 corroboration of any claims or allegations made

It is also important to have your own sources. Don’t just chase those used by others.
They may not be reliable. Build your own network of trusted contacts and turn to
those.

i. Contributors

Be cautious about people who are offered up to speak on an issue. They might be
being promoted for a reason other than to accurately inform the public debate. You
need to take care in order to examine the motives of those offering contributors and
those offering to contribute.

Don’t take for granted what you read on a third-party website. It might look
professional, and it may sound convincing, but that doesn’t mean it is true.

If you copy material from an online site you are running a great risk, especially if you
reproduce it word for word. It is fine to research information and check it out yourself,
but you must never take as fact information that is published elsewhere.

Don’t been fooled by images, videos, audio and reproduced documents.

Digital manipulation is rife. In the past, an edit in a filmed interview often had to be
covered by what is known as a cut-away shot, which took the eye of the viewer away
from the point in the interview that was being edited.

Now, with digital manipulation, that is no longer necessary. So don't be taken in by

what you see and hear in audio/video footage. It may have been altered.

5
Unless you know the person who created the material, and are absolutely sure they
are genuine and honest, remain cautious until you have verified it. Or, if you feel you
must refer to it, qualify and qualify again so that your audience is not led to think you
are recommending the material as proven fact.

When people turn to you they expect you to deliver facts. You can refer to material
gathered elsewhere, but always qualify it by saying that this material is from another
source, and state that source. It is also worth adding that you have not been able to
verify the information given, if that is the case.

ii. Keeping Notes And Records

Most reporters, when they start work for the first time, are given a notebook and told
to keep it safe and never throw it away. You never know when you may have to refer
to your notes as evidence in a legal case.

Accurate note-taking is essential. The usual rule is that notes must not only be
accurate, they must also be reliable and contemporaneous.

That means that you need to have spoken to reliable sources at the time an incident
happened, rather than jot down from memory casual conversations long after the
event. The latter is unlikely to stand up in a court of law.

You will also need to keep records of the research you carried out in reaching your
conclusions. These should all be contained in your notebook, or, in the case of those
using computers, in folders and files.

iii. Admitting Mistakes

The willingness to admit mistakes is another part of the drive to be accurate.

This has become all the more important in the age of online archives, although it has
always been the case that mistakes in old newspaper cuttings could be repeated and
result in an inaccurate report being circulated again years later.

Your news organisation will have a correction strategy.

Our purpose is to pursue the truth. Diligent verification is critical. We take great care
to ensure that statements of fact in our journalism are both correct and in context. In
our reporting, we rigorously challenge both the claims we encounter and the
assumptions we bring.

We devote our resources and our skills to presenting the fullest version of the truth
we can deliver, placing the highest value on information we have gathered and
verified ourselves.

6
iv. Quotes

Quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant
word or clause, and then, only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in
any way.

Selective use of quotes can be unbalanced. Be sure that quotes you use are
representative of what the speaker is saying and that you describe body language (a
smile or a wink) that may affect the sense of what is being reported. When quoting an
individual always give the context or circumstances of the quote.

It is not our job to make people look good by cleaning up inelegant turns of phrase,
nor is it our job to expose them to ridicule by running such quotes. In most cases, this
dilemma can be resolved by paraphrase and reported speech. Where it cannot,
reporters should consult a more senior journalist to discuss whether the quote can be
run verbatim.

Correcting a grammatical error in a quote may be valid, but rewording an entire

phrase is not. When translating quotes from one language into another, we should do
so in an idiomatic way rather than with pedantic literalness. Care must be taken to
ensure that the tone of the translation is equivalent to the tone of the original.

Beware of translating quotes in newspaper pickups back into the original language of
the source. If a French politician gives an interview to an American newspaper, it is
almost certain that the translation back into French will be wrong and in some cases
the quote could be very different. In such cases, the fewer quotes and the more
reported speech, the better.

v. Reflecting Reality

Accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. It can be tempting
for journalists to “hype” or sensationalise material, skewing the reality of the situation
or misleading the reader or viewer into assumptions and impressions that are wrong
and potentially harmful.

A “flood” of immigrants, for example, may in reality be a relatively small number of

people just as a “surge” in a stock price may be a quite modest rise. Stopping to
think, and to discuss, how we use words leads to more precise journalism and also
minimises the potential for harm.

Similarly, no actions in visual journalism should be taken that add to or detract from
the reality of images. In some circumstances, this may constitute fabrication and can
cause serious damage to our reputation. Such actions may lead to disciplinary
measures, including dismissal.

7
vi. Datelines (Not Deadlines) And Bylines

Accuracy is paramount in our use of datelines and bylines. Readers assume that the
byline shows the writer was at the dateline. We should byline stories only from
datelines where the writer (or the reporter being written up on a desk) was present.

We may only use datelines where we have staff or freelancers on the spot from text,
photos or TV and we are getting information from them on the ground. Reporters or
freelancers who have contributed to a report should be included in an additional
reporting line at the end of the story, giving their name and location.

vii. Attribution

Accuracy means proper attribution to the source of material that is not ours, whether
in a story, a photograph or moving images. Our customers and the public rely on us
to be honest about where material has originated. It allows them to assess the
reliability.

It is insufficient simply to label video or a photograph as “handout”. We should clearly

identify the source – for example “Greenpeace Video” or “U.S. Army Photo”.

Similarly, it is essential for transparency that material we did not gather ourselves is
clearly attributed in stories to the source, including when that source is a rival
organisation. Failure to do so may open us to charges of plagiarism.

viii. Reporting Rumours

Media organisations aim to report the facts, not rumours. Clients rely on us to
differentiate between fact and rumour and our reputation rests partly on that. There
are times when rumours affect financial markets and we have a duty to tell readers
why a market is moving and to try to track down the rumour – to verify it or knock it
down.

There may be exceptional circumstances when a market is moving so rapidly and so

violently that we move a story before being able to verify or knock down the rumour..

ix. Graphic Images And Obscenities

In the course of our work, we witness and record scenes of a violent or sexually
graphic nature. As journalists, we have an obligation to convey the reality of what we
report accurately, yet a duty to be aware that such material can cause distress,
damage the dignity of the individuals concerned or even in some cases so overpower
the viewer or reader that a rational understanding of the facts is impaired.

We do not sanitise violence, bowdlerise speech or euphemise sex. We should not,

however, publish graphic images and details or obscene language gratuitously or
with an intention to titillate or to shock. There must be a valid news reason for running
such material and it will usually require a decision by a senior editor.
8
In all cases, we need to consider whether the material is necessary to an
understanding of the reality portrayed or described. We should also be mindful that
our customers in different markets often have different thresholds and needs.

Graphic material which we might send to our wholesale broadcast clients may not be
suitable for use online in our consumer business, just as a sexually explicit
photograph may be more acceptable in one part of the world than another.

x. Be Able To Identify The Source Of Each Fact You Report

Editors at The Oregonian make writers pause and verify before publication:

“My copy editor colleague was blunt: “I’m going to need proof that these people exist
and that this is how they spell their names.”

Ouch. Was he questioning my integrity? My work mentioned dozens of people. Did

he think I had unlimited time to prove the obvious? I took a deep breath and settled
in with this reaction: gratitude. This editor, Jake Arnold, put our readers and our
credibility with them first.”

When making a general assertion of fact in a story, the reporter and editor should be
able to immediately identify the source and explain why that person or organization is
credible and authoritative.

This is essential to the editing process and it also lets us stand by our reporting in a
clear and convincing way if a story comes under question. We should never be in the
position of looking for corroboration after a report has been published or broadcast.

xi. Guard Against Subjective Errors

Ensuring we have our factual details correct is only part of the accuracy equation. It’s
just as important to make sure we’ve correctly interpreted those facts in our reporting.

The burden is on us to ensure that the way we use the material we collect — sound,
photos and words — is true to their intended meaning and context.

When quoting or paraphrasing anyone - whether in a blog post, an online story or in

an on-air “actuality” – consider whether the source would agree with the
interpretation, keeping in mind that sources may sometimes parse their words even
though we accurately capture their meaning.

An actuality from someone we interview or a speaker at an event should reflect

accurately what that person was asked, was responding to or was addressing.

9
xii. Edit Like A Prosecutor

Great journalism comes in part from the collaborative efforts of reporters, editors and
producers, who all play a key role in ensuring accuracy. We believe in teamwork. But
good editors are also good prosecutors. They test, probe and challenge reporters,
always with the goal of making stories as good (and therefore as accurate) as
possible.

“A successful editor has to help the reporter see the big picture, but also needs to fret
over details,” says Jonathan Kern in Sound Reporting. And, “above all … editors are
responsible for making sure that reports are accurate and fair.”

xiii. Take Special Care With News That Might Cause Grief Or Damage
Reputations

Any falsehoods in our news reports can cause harm. But errors that may damage
reputations or bring about grief are especially dangerous, and extra precautions
should be taken to avoid them.

We don’t report an individual’s death, for example, until it has been confirmed by
authoritative sources and we’re certain the family is aware. In those cases, err on the
side of caution. Go slowly, and above all, get clearance from a senior manager.

This cautious, considered approach also applies to what we do on social media sites.

xiv. For More Accurate Stories, Seek Diverse Perspectives

We tell stronger, better-informed stories when we sample a variety of perspectives on

what we’re covering. The best reporting draws on the experiences of experts,
influential figures and laypeople from across the demographic spectrum.

A story could accurately claim, for example, that unemployment in the Washington,
D.C., metro area in the fall of 2011 was quite a bit lower than the national average.
But that fact would probably ring false to a resident of the city proper, where the
unemployment rate was considerably higher at the time. And such a story would
describe a world vastly different from D.C.’s Ward 8, which had one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country.

Any of these vantage points could make for a technically accurate story. But drawing
on all of them allows for a much more nuanced report. Means and medians can be
informative, but true insight often comes from surveying experiences all along the
spectrum.

10
xv. Give Preference To Original Sources

For years, journalists have been cautioned by their editors that an all- too-common
pitfall of fact checking is verifying “facts” through second sources, such as other news
media outlets, that do not have “direct” knowledge about what they supposedly know.
The problem has only gotten more serious as the Internet has made it ever easier to
find what others have reported as “fact.” That’s why we value primary sources for our
facts and we check them before broadcast or publication.

xvi. Be Judicious When Passing Along Breaking News

In breaking news situations, timeliness and accuracy can be in conflict. When news is
breaking, we may need to pass along information reported by others because the
public should know about it immediately.

This is particularly true when safety is an issue (severe weather events or other types
of emergencies, for example). In all cases, take special care in using information from
wire service stories, reports by other news organizations, newspaper clips or articles
in other publications.

If it’s determined that something is so important that the public needs to know about it
now, even before we’ve had a chance to thoroughly vet the information, be
transparent: state what we’re certain of, what we don’t yet know and how our
information was acquired.

And again, if we have information that might cause significant grief (to a victim’s
family, for example) or might potentially put someone in harm’s way, we do not report
it until it’s been thoroughly verified and senior editors have given their approval.

xvii. Attribute Everything

Attribute, attribute and attribute some more. No material from another source should
ever be included verbatim, or substantially so, without attribution. This includes
material from Associated Press reports.

We should not, for example, produce news “spots” or other pieces that closely
resemble wire service stories. Our writing should be our own. There is no excuse for
writing that repeats the wire stories that we use word-for-word, or nearly so.

When in doubt, err on the side of attributing — that is, make it very clear where we’ve
gotten our information (or where the organization we give credit to has gotten its
information).

Every reporter and editor should be able to immediately identify the source of any
facts in our stories — and why we consider them credible. And every reader or
listener should know where we got our information from. ”Media reports” or “sources
say” is not good enough. Be specific.

11
Also, in cases where stories are developing and the news may be changing from
moment to moment, state clearly what a media has and has not been able to confirm
on its own and what key questions remain unanswered.

xviii. One Exception: Wire Transcripts Don’t Necessarily Need Attribution

There is one type of material we routinely get from our wire services (The Associated
Press and Reuters) that does not necessarily need to be attributed to the wire
service. That is where a wire story is about a public event — such as a press
conference, a speech by a public official in a public setting, an official statement of a
government agency, a congressional hearing, and the like.

In those cases, we reasonably expect that the wire services are reliable conveyors of
those quotes in the same way we regard the transcript services we use for these
events. But we must use caution. Whenever possible, check the wire service’s work
against any audio or video recordings or other wire-service renderings of the events.

b. Accuracy Online

News moves fast on the Internet, and we know that speed and accuracy are fierce
rivals, so keep your guard up. Ask questions, report and engage as you would in any
public setting. But remember that everything you say or do in a social media
environment is effectively a public statement from a journalist, so don’t pass along
inaccurate information.

i. Don’t Just Spread Information. Be Careful And Skeptical.

When determining whether to pass along information being reported on social media
sites by other news outlets or individuals, be thoughtful. When we point to what
others are saying, in the eyes of many we are effectively reporting that information
ourselves.

But we also know that reporting about what’s being posted on social media can give
our listeners and readers valuable insights into the day’s news.

One key is to be transparent about what we’re doing. We tell readers what has and
hasn’t been confirmed. We challenge those putting information out on social media to
provide evidence. We raise doubts and ask questions when we have concerns —
sometimes “knocking down” rumors circulating on the Web is of enormous value to
our readers.

And we always ask an important question: am I about to spread a thinly-sourced

rumor or am I passing on valuable and credible (even if unverified) information in a
transparent manner with appropriate caveats?

Above all, proceed with caution, especially when news is breaking and accounts vary
widely about what is happening. Reach out to other sources for confirmation.

12
ii. When In Doubt, Consult The Social Media Team

Of course, it’s not always obvious how to apply journalistic principles to the social
media arena. One resource always available to journalists is our “social media team.”
Its members have expertise in collecting information from a variety of sources, in
establishing to the best of their ability the credibility of those voices and the
information they are posting, and in analyzing the material they use.

Always make clear to listeners and readers what has been obtained from our original
reporting and what we’ve found posted in social media outlets. And to the greatest
practical extent, spell out how the information was checked and why we consider the
sources credible. We may also invite our audience to assist in our efforts to monitor
and verify what’s being reported on social media.

iii. Follow Up Offline When Appropriate

It’s often easier to falsify one’s identity online than it is in the offline world. And tonal
or contextual nuances can be lost in online exchanges. So when appropriate, clarify
and confirm information collected online through phone and in-person interviews. For
example, when a social media posting is itself news, try to contact the source to
confirm the origin of the information and attain a better understanding of its meaning.
We must try to be as sophisticated in our use of social media as our audience and
users are. The social media team is a key asset in this effort.

iv. Be Vigilant About Presenting Data Accurately

It’s easy to represent data inaccurately or misleadingly, especially in charts and

infographics. Double-check your numbers and the way you portray them to make
sure you’re imparting the proper information.

Accurately presenting data includes guarding against false precision. Politicians may
claim, for instance, that a budget plan will reduce deficits by $1.512 trillion over 10
years. Given the many variables and uncertainties involved in such forecasts,
carrying the number out that many decimal places could give readers a false sense
of certainty — precisely what the politicians would like, but not necessarily what is
most “true.” In such cases, rounding may be a better approach (to, for example, “$1.5
trillion”).

2. DEFAMATION

• A popular Arizona congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was reported last year to

have died after being shot in the head. She is very much alive today and has made a
remarkable recovery.

• A legendary football coach, Penn State's Joe Paterno, was reported to have died
more than 12 hours before he actually did.

13
• Just last month, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was reported by a blogger to be
facing federal indictment on tax charges. The blogger did not gather a scintilla of
evidence to support his claim or even give her a chance to comment before posting
the allegation. This was a clear case of character assassination, a would-be
"journalist" putting speed ahead of the basic principles of accuracy and verification.

The most troubling thing was that arguably credible news organizations (The New
York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, CBS) originated or repeated one or more of
these false accounts on their digital platforms.

Words are very powerful. Journalists use them to inform, entertain and educate their
readers and listeners. Words can be used to expose faults or abuses in society and
to identify people who are to blame.

However, used wrongly or unwisely, they can do harm. Words can misinform the
public and they can hurt people with false accusations. At one stroke words can
destroy a reputation which someone has spent a lifetime building. So people must be
protected from the wrongful use of words.

a. What Is Defamation?

Very simply, defamation is to spread bad reports about someone which could do
them harm.

Of course, the laws of defamation say more than that, but it is a good place to start.
The verb is to defame and the words used are said to be defamatory. You can
defame someone if you write or say something about them which spoils their good
reputation, which makes people want to avoid them or which hurts them in their work
or their profession.

Laws of defamation vary from society to society, even those based on English
common law. This is especially so on the issue of truth. In common law, a matter
normally has to be false to be defamatory.

However, some systems have passed laws (statutes) that truth alone is not a
complete defence. And even in common law systems it is the responsibility of the
person making the accusation to prove it is true; it is not the responsibility of the
victim to prove it is false. This is an important distinction for journalists.

If someone complains to the court that you have defamed them, they are called the
plaintiff. Because defamation is usually a civil wrong, when people take court action,
they are said to sue for defamation.

Before the mass media became so important, defamation was usually done by word
of mouth, often by rumour or gossip. Today, many cases of defamation relate to the
media.

14
To defame someone, journalists do not have to make up false things themselves.
You can defame a person by repeating words spoken by someone else, for example
an interviewee.

It is no defence to claim that you were only quoting someone else. If you write
something defamatory, you could be taken to court, along with your editor, your
publisher and printer or your broadcasting authority, the person who said the words in
the first place ... even the newspaper seller.

b. Libel And Slander

Before we move on, a word about libel and slander. These are words for different
kinds of defamation. Years ago, the difference between libel and slander was that
libel was the written word, while slander was the spoken word.

With the development of the press, libel became the most widespread form of
defamation. When broadcasting was introduced, most legal systems decided to treat
radio and television like the press and apply the laws of libel to them, even though
their words are spoken.

c. A Definition Of Defamation

The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his

family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be
injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons
are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

Publication of defamatory matter can be by (a) spoken words or audible sound or (b)
words intended to be read by sight or touch or (c) signs, signals, gestures or visible
representations, and must be done to a person other than the person defamed.

d. What Are Some Examples?

Calling someone dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, lazy, incompetent, criminal,

unfaithful, or financially troubled. For example, imagine I wrote that you often visited
brothels. I may be able to prove this is true. You may visit brothels every day, making
deliveries of wine. But that’s not what readers will think, is it? They will read between
the lines and gather that I’m saying you frequently sleep with prostitutes. This is the
“sting” of the article.

15
e. Consider Using An Accuracy Checklist

Before our reporting reaches the public, we check “everything that walks or talks or
acts like a fact.” While it may seem elementary, a simple checklist can be a
powerful tool to make sure we haven’t made any oversights. Here’s a set of
questions to ask before you call any story complete:

 Is every name and title correctly spelled? (And, in the case of radio,
correctly pronounced according to either the subject himself or someone else
with direct knowledge of how to say it?)
 Are the quotes accurate and properly attributed?
 Have I reviewed my spelling and grammar? (Special note: yes, it’s
important for journalists to spell names, places and other key facts accurately
in their radio scripts because those details end up in our Web reports.)
 Is every number and calculation correct? (Related tip: triple-check any
references to millions, billions or trillions; confusing them is one of the most
common mistakes made. Also: triple-check your references to percentages to
ensure that you shouldn’t be saying “percentage points” instead. If you’re not
sure which you should use, ask one of the reporters or editors who cover
business and the economy.)
 Are all the terms being used correctly? For example, was the suspect really
“arrested” or is he only being questioned?
 Does every fact in the story match the information with any photos or
graphics associated with it? (Special note: again, it’s important for
journalists who are primarily reporting for radio to check their pieces against
such material.)
 Do I need to check a source’s “fact” against what others are saying?
Advocates can skew things in their favor.
 Is the story fair? Read or listen one more time. Try to come to it as if you
were a listener or reader, not the reporter, editor or producer.
 Does it hang together? Our conclusions are supported by facts. We pause
before broadcast or publication to ask if we have answered all the questions
that can be answered. If important questions can’t be resolved, we make sure
our listeners and readers know what they are.

IN-CLASS DISCUSSION

(SLIDES)

16