���˿���

Two of the biggest legal challenges facing journalists are defamation law and privacy law.

Defamation law

Journalists must avoid making defamatory statements which could lead to libel cases.

Defamatory statements are those which 'tend' to expose a person to 'hatred, ridicule or contempt', cause them to be 'shunned or avoided' or lowered in the estimation of 'right-thinking members of society'.

For a business, a statement is judged defamatory if it could affect sales or profit.

If a newspaper or broadcaster loses a defamation trial, they could be faced with huge damages and legal fees. Even if they win the case, they may have to pay some legal fees.

For this reason the vast majority of defamation cases are settled out of court.

Defences which a journalist could use include: justification or ‘truth’; ‘honest comment’; and privilege.

Truth is simply the defence that the statement concerned is true.

It is the strongest and simplest defence but often difficult in practice as the burden of proof is on the defendant (journalist) rather than the claimant (the person claiming they have been defamed).

Honest comment or honest opinion can be used if the statement was the journalist’s honestly held view on an issue of public importance or interest. This defence protects writers of opinion pieces and reviews.

^{In a courtroom journalists have absolute privilege to report whatever is said by anyone there}

Privilege gives journalists the right to report whatever is said, even if it’s defamatory.

Certain situations are privileged or have privilege. For example, in a courtroom, journalists have absolute privilege to report whatever is said by anyone there, whether they are witnesses, defendants, a judge or a member of the public.

At public meetings (including council meetings and parliament) and press conferences journalists have qualified privilege.

This means they can report whatever is said, but there are some conditions or qualifications attached.

For example, say a journalist is present at a council planning committee meeting. In that meeting, a claim is made that Councillor Fred Smith was involved in approving a dodgy planning application. The journalist can report exactly what was said, but they are legally obliged to give Councillor Smith the chance to comment or deny the accusation, if he wants to.