The law of libel

“The three most important things in journalism...” my first editor Dougie Blackhall on the Whitley Bay Guardian (and Seaside Chronicle) told me in my first week “are accuracy, accuracy and accuracy.” No, before you ask, he never made it to Fleet Street. So it saddens me to see the Euro Lottery sums regularly handed out by newspapers and TV come to that in the libel courts. The pay-outs in the Madeleine McCann story alone would probably have been enough to save Northern Rock. Recent winners in the great gameshow Don’t Forget Your Truth Brush include West Ham manager Gianfranco Zola (culprit: the BBC) Former EastEnders star Mo George (Sun), campaigner Erin Pizzey (BBC) and of course that famous Big Brother “star” Charley Uchea (Daily Star). Touch wood, I have never been successfully sued myself although over the years I could have papered a reasonable size lounge with solicitors’ threatening letters. That should be a badge of honour. But many a hack has risen to editor level precisely because they haven’t worried about the midnight phone call from one of m’learned friends (or Rumpole of Ancoats as we called him at Express Newspapers). Defamation is caused by words which expose the victim - an individual or an organisation - to hatred, ridicule or contempt, which cause him or her or the organisation to be shunned or avoided…which lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society….or which injures him in his office, profession or trade. The onus is very much on the publisher to justify what was put in the public domain. Internet sites are not exempt from libel laws. In a key judgement in 2002, the Australian high court ruled that mining magnate Joseph Gutnick could sue publisher Dow Jones under Australian law for alleged libel online. The judge deemed that the web was no different from newspapers or television. Understanding the libel laws, of course, made celebrity barrister George Carman a very rich man and I recommend the biography by his son Dominic called No Ordinary Man. I once received a letter from that august law firm Peter Carter Ruck after writing a yarn about high pressure salesmanship in the vending machine world. The company I was targeting had arm-twisted one of my sources to say he had been misquoted, promising all sorts of financial benefits. His conscience finally convinced him to retract the criticism of the story and the lawyers withdrew, still probably charging 10 times the fee I’d been paid for the tale. Sometimes the journalist’s true account is mangled in the sub-editing process. Members of Manchester’s gay community tried to sue me once over a story about hoax 999 calls to the fire brigade emanating from in and around Canal Street. After an over-enthusiastic sub had peppered the account with more puns and double-entendres than a Carry On movie I could see their point. Just think pole, chopper, helmet. Or on second thoughts, don’t. But some journalists seem to have a kamikaze wish to end up in the dock. A showbiz writer on the Sun once filed a breathless piece of prose which led the Bizarre column under the headline “Sting: Why I Have Taken Drugs”. The scribe claimed to have the performer born Gordon Sumner’s confession on tape. Several letters, threats and eventually a writ later he was asked to play the tape to the office lawyer and the Sun’s then editor Kelvin MacKenzie. The hushed room heard the critical exchange. Reporter: “Sting, have you ever taken drugs?” Sting, replying firmly: “No.” As the executives went pale and looked at each other, the hack said: “But it was the way he said ‘no’.” Sting trousered damages of £75,000.