Adversarial Press
A national press that is suspicious of officialdom
and eager to break an embarrassing story about a
public official.
Gatekeeper
The Role of the media in influencing what subjects
become national political issues and for how long.
Background Story
A public official's explanation of current policy
provides to the press on the condition that the
source remain confidential.
Loaded Language
Words that reflect a value judgment, used to
persuade the listener without making an argument.
Equal Time Rule
A rule of the FCC stating that if a broadcaster sells
time to one candidate for office, he or she must be
willing to sell equal time to opposing candidates.
Muckraker
One who spreads real or alleged scandal about
another (usually for political advantage).
Feature Stories
Media reports about public events knowable to any
report who cares to inquire,but involving acts and
statements not routinely covered by a group of
reporters.The reporter must take the initiative to
pursue the story,write it,and convince editor to run
it
Political Editorializing Rule
A rule of the FCC that if a broadcaster endorses a
candidate, the opposing candidate has a right to
reply.
Prior Restraint
The press is protected by the First Amendment
from government censorship of information before
it is published or broadcast, but may be punished
after publication if the material is judged libelous
or obscene.
Fairness Doctrine
A former rule of the FCC that required
broadcasters to give time to opposing views if they
broadcast a program giving one side of a
controversial issue.
Routine Stories
Media reports about public events that are
regularly covered by reporters and that involve
simple, easily described acts or statements.
Federal Communications Commission
An independent United States government agency.
The FCC was established by the Communications
Act of 1932 and is charge with regulating interstate
and international communications by radio,
television, wire, satellite and cable.
Attack Journalism
A term used to describe practice of some
journalists that focus on personal scandals.
Insider Stories
Information not usually made public that becomes
public because someone with inside knowledge
tells a reporter. Information is gathered through
investigation or leaks.
Confidentiality
Discretion in keeping secret information.
Market
A area easily reached by television signal. There
are about two hundred such markets in the country.
Party Press
Parties Created controlled, and subsidized various
newspapers which targeted elites and were very
partisan.
Selective attention
Paying attention only to those parts of a newspaper
or broadcast story with which one agrees. Studies
show that this is how people view political ads on
television.
Popular Press
A term used to describe the period of mass
readership and distribution of the news, however it
was still partisan and used "yellow journalism" or
sensationalism to attract readers.
sound bite
In the reporting of TV news, a very short
statement, lasting no more than a few seconds, that
tries to convey a specific idea, image, or
perception that will attract the viewing audience's
attention.
right of reply rule
A rule for the FCC that if a person is attacked on a
broadcast (other than in a regular news program),
that person has the right to reply over that same
station.
trial balloon
Information provided to the media by an
anonymous public official as a way of testing the
public reaction to a possible policy or appointment
scorekeeper
A function of the media in which journalists track
political reputations and candidacies. The media
covers elections as if they are "HORSE RACES"
rather than choices among policy alternatives.
watchdog
The role the media plays in investigating
personalities and exposing scandals.
Yellow Journalism
A style of a newspaper writings in which reporters
exaggerated the facts or a story in order to sell the
newspaper.
author
person that writes a book
illustrator
person that creates the pictures in a book
character
main people or animals in the book
problem
the event that the main character needs to solve
solution
answer to the problem in the story
genre
type or kind of book
setting
when or where the story takes place
beginning
the part of the story that introduces the chaacters
and setting
middle
the part of the story that has the problem
end
the part of the story that tells or shows the solution
solution
the answer to the problem
copyright date
when the story was written and received copyright
copyright means
protected story or song, play, movie,video,tv
program and no one can copy it without
permission from author, or publisher
cause
the event that begins a problem or happeninh
effect
the things that happens from a cause
spine
the backbone of the book
front cover
the front of the book
back cover
the back of the book
spine label
the label on the spine that tells the address of the
book or the call number
call number
address of the book
author's last name
the first three letters go on the spine label for the
call number
Poplar Housing v Donoghue
outlined difference between core/standard public
authorities (s 6(1)) and functional public
authorities (s 6(3).
Poplar Housing v Donoghue
Two steps to determine if Section 6(3) is satisfied
(1) Court or Tribunal or (2) Functions in a public
nature HRA S (6) HRA 1998 requires a generous
interpretation of public authority
R v Panel on Take overs and Mergers Ex p Datafin
plc
emphasis on public function
Parochial Church Council of the Paris of Aston
Cantlaw and Wilmcote v Wallbank:
The council sought repairs of a church- is this
action private or public? There is no single test of
universal application.
Parochial Church Council of the Paris of Aston
Cantlaw and Wilmcote v Wallbank: TEST
Factors action is public are:(1) extent of public
funding (2) body is using a statutory power (3)
taking the place of central government/local
authority (4) providing a public service. The
essential factor in this case was whether the body
was governmenta
YL v Birmingham
HELD: private care homes are not a public
function- this was overturned legislatively in
relation to care homes- but still holds true for
MEDIA LAW
Venables and Thompson
where there is no existing cause of action the
courts have no duty to act. I.E the trial has to be
‘tied’ to an existing cause of action (unfair
dismissal- article 8 privacy was violated in the
process)
Campbell v MGN
Article 8 English law is not directly concerned
with protection of privacy against private
persons/corporations by virtue of Section 6 HRA
NOTE HRA 1998 does not create a new cause of
action (Lady Hale)
A v B plc
The court as a public authority is required to not
act in a way which is incompatible to convention
rights. Lord Nicholls: making Convention rights
applicable to both private companies/individuals.
A v B plc Confirmed?
(CONFIRMED IN: McKennit v Ash- Buxton LJ
and Campbell + Douglas v Hello) NOTE to find
breach of confidence we now look to Art 8 and 10
jurisprudence.
R (on the application of Ullah) v Special
Adjudicator
established that UK under s 2 HRA had to
follow/where bound by clear and constant
Strasbourg judgements if it isn’t clear and constant
it can be disregarded
Kay & Anor v London Borough of Lambern & Ors
and Leeds City Council v Price
Strasbourg rulings can be disregarded if clear post
HRA House of Lord rulings stand in the way.
In Re P and others (AP) (Appellants) (Northern
Ireland)
Technically english courts do not HAVE to do
more than Strasbourg would do. Baroness Hale
however noted that with the HRA Parliament
wanted to courts to go further then Strasbourg
would.
R v A (Complainants Sexual History)
concerned complainants sexual history- it was
incompatible with section 6 (right to a fair trial)
according to LORD STEYN: the interpretative
obligation under Section 3 is a strong one they
interpreted the section as meaning it permitted
evidence directly
Re S and Re W (Care Orders)
here it was established that straining the language
is fine- but you can’t just CHANGE it. HELD BY
HOUSE OF LORDS: court went to far.
Lord Nicholls: it is a powerful not optional
obligation.
Poplar Housing, R v Lambert
both discuss limitations of section 3- the act
maintains constitutional boundary. GENERAL
RULE interpretation of statues is for the courts, the
enactment and amendment for Parliament.
The Interpretative obligation
Section 3(1) HRA: is the duty of the courts to
interpret legislation as in line with with
Convention rights as possible- incompatible
primary legislation still to be full effect (Section
3(2)(b)) S3 does not affect validity.
Bellinger v Bellinger
post op tranny- said her right was violated by the
courts as it did not allow her to marry her husband.
HELD it was not possible to interpret the word
female in the Act as referring to a Transexual.
Ghaidan v Mendoza
18 years monogamous in the relevant property, he
wanted to succeed the tenancy, but couldn’t
because the Act said ‘husband or wife’. HELD The
words could be read AS IF THEY WERE his
husband or wife.
R (On the Application of Hammond) (FC) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Relevant provision should be read subject to an
implied condition that the High Court judge has
the discretion to order an oral hearing- where it is
required to comply with prisoners rights.
Section 12(3) HRA: what is the test for granting
interim injunctions against the media?
Cream Holdings Ltd and Others v Banerjee and
Others: OLD TEST: the applicant showed a ‘real
prospect of success’ the court would consider
where the ‘balance of connivence’ lay. (American
Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd.)
Facts Of
H was found in Cream that there was no single
rigid standard to govern all interim restraints-.
SUFFICIENTLY is defined by the circumstances
of the case. Some need to be more likely to
succeed then others- depends on facts.
Judicial Deference and ‘the area of discretionary
judgement’:
Brown v Stott- R v Director of Public Prosecutions
ex p Kebline-- International Transport Roth GmbH
v Secretary of State for the Home Dept.
R v DPP ex Kebline and others
margin of appreciation is not available to national
courts, sometimes courts recognize that there is an
area of judgement that the judiciary will defer on
democratic grounds.
R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex p Prolife
Alliance
greater or less deference will be due depending
whether the subject matter lies more readily with
the actual or potential expertise of the democratic
power or the court
ARTICLE 10 BASIC PRINCIPLE:
(Step One)
Handyside v UK: freedom of expression is an
essential foundation of a democratic society.
Applicable to both favorable and offensive
shocking idea and expression.
(Step Two) Hierarchy of Speech
Jerslid v Denmark: (POLITICAL SPEECH
NUMBER 1) - then - Otto-Preminger Institute v
Austria (ARTISTIC SPEECH NUMBER 2) - then
- X and Church of Scientology v Sweden
(COMMERCIAL/ADVERTISING SPEECH
NUMBER 3)
(Step Three): Justifying Interference with Speech
Article 10 Para 2 Interference must be:-be
prescribed by law-serve a legitimate aim i.e one of
the aims in Art 10(2) -be necessary in a a
democratic society- serve a social need-be
proportionate to the aim pursued
NOTE: Exceptions are narrowly construed:
Sunday times v UK:
FACTS?
published article that presented both sides and did
not impute guilt. Not letting the article publish
would prevent families from being aware of their
legal rights/options HELD reasons to restrict were
not sufficient under Article 10(2) Restriction was
n
STEP FOUR
Little scope under Art 10(2) of the convention for
restriction on political speech or questions of
public interests. NOTE greater margin of
appreciation afford to member states for artistic
speech at ECHR (Otto-Preminger)
why do many plaintiffs lose libel suits?
because they cannot meet the burden of proof
3/4 of media requests for summary judgment are
granted by courts
statute of limitations
a law that requires that legal action must begin
within a specific period of time after the legal
wrong happened
single publication rule
says the entire edition of a newspaper or magazine
or Web posting is a single publication and one
republication of that same material months/years
later does not mean republication, which would
restart the statute of limitations
can a plaintiff who has not filed a libel suit w/i the
statute of limitations in his/her home state file an
action in another state that has a longer statute of
limitations?
yes, if the libel has been spread in this other state
Keeton v. Hustler & Calder v. Jones
2 Supreme Court rulings that stand for the
preposition that publishers can be sued in any
jurisdiction where they distribute even a small part
of their publication - even if the plaintiff does not
live there
What is the usual amount of time allotted in a
statute of limitations?
1-3 years
absolute privilege (privilege of the participant)
privilege where certain people in certain situations
cannot be sued for libel. these people include
congressman, city council members, governors,
those who work in administrative/executive
branches of govt & etc.
qualified privilege (privilege of reporter)
where individual can report what happens at an
official government proceeding or transmit the
substance of an official government
report/statement and remain immune from libel
even if the publication of the material defames
someone
criteria for one to have qualified privilege
1.must report a privileged proceeding/document
2.publish or broadcast a fair/accurate summary
what type of privilege is the qualified privilege?
a conditional privilege
who bears the burden of proving that the privilege
applies to the libelous material?
the defendant
occasions covered by qualified privilege:
legislative proceedings; judicial proceedings;
executive actions
neutral reportage
new variety of qualified privilege that says when
the press reports newsworthy allegations that are
defamatory that come from a reliable source they
are privileged even if the reporter believed
allegations were false
4 elements to neutral reportage
1.defamatory allegations must be newsworthy
charges that create/are associated with public
controversy 2.charges must be made by
responsible/prominent source 3.charges must be
reported accurately.neutrally 4.charges must be
about public official/figure
common-law malice
when a privilege is lost because material is not
published to inform the public, rather it is
published, because the publisher wanted to hurt the
target of the defamation
rhetorical hyperbole
one potential defense for statement of opinion;
protected because language is so expansive
readers/viewers know it is an opinion, and not a
fact
First Amendment (statement of opinion)
a potential defense for statement of opinion;
protects statement of opinion for obvious reasons
such as free speech rights on issues that are of
public concern
The Ollman Test
4 part test that determines if a statement is one of
opinion or fact: 1.can statement be proved true or
false? 2.what is common/ordinary meaning of
words? 3.what is journalistic context of remark?
4.what is social context of remark?
fair comment
potential common law defense that protects
statements of opinion; has 3-part test: 1.is
comment opinion statement 2.does defamatory
comment focus on subject of legit public interest?
3.is there factual basis fro comment?
consent
an individual cannot sue for libel if he/she
consented to the publication of the defamatory
material
indirect/implied consent
consent that is given indirectly for example if one
tells others about the charges against them they
have given consent to publication
right of reply (the self-defense)
if an individual has been defamed he/she may
answer the defamation with a libelous
communication and not be subjected to a libel suit
actual damages
most common libel damages; damages for actual
injury where plaintiffs must bring evidence to
court to show the harm they suffered because of
the defamatory material
special damages
specific items of loss caused by published
defamatory statements; must be proved in more
specific terms; least sought
presumed damages
damages plaintiffs can get without proof of injury
or harm; for private person only negligence needs
to be shown
punitive damages
designed to punish defendants for misconduct and
to warn others; damages usually very large
retraction
both an apology and an attempt to set record
straight
criminal libel
founded on theory that sometimes it is appropriate
for state to act on behalf of the party injured and to
bring criminal charges against the defendant
Garrison v. Louisiana
criminal libel case where court ruled that when a
defamation of a public official is the basis for a
criminal libel suit, the state has to prove actual
malice (2 elements included)
defamation is what type of wrong?
civil
what is a tort?
civil wrong
most common problem faced by those in mass
media
libel
libel
any publication or broadcast that:
1. hurts ones reputation/2. lowers persons esteem
in community
who faces the majority of libel suits?
the mass media
reasons libel suits are worst for the media:
1.lots of time and money/2.otrageous claims
sought and won/3.libel law puzzle/4.some
plaintiffs use a tool to quiet those n press
SLAPP
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
2 tests for SLAPP
1.was defendant using free speech rights to
comment on public issue?/2.has plaintiff brought
enough evidence to show he/she has probability of
winning?
solution for libel issues
retraction laws
2 types of defamation
1.libel / 2.slander
libel
written defamation
slander
oral defamation
3 elements of libel
1. defamation damages reputation of person, not
character/2. words must actually damage
reputation(proof necessary)/3. significant,
representative minority of community must believe
plaintiffs reputation has been harmed
survival statutes
state statutes that allow a dead one's relatives to
continue pursuing a lawsuit after his/her's death
in a libel case who has burden of proof?
plaintiff
to win libel suit plaintiff must have 5 elements
present. What are they?
1. publication/ 2.identification/ 3. defamation/ 4.
falsity/ 5. fault
publication
proof libel was published. in other words, another
person besides the source and subject of libel have
seen the defamatory material
scienter
guilty knowledge (defendant knows printed matter
contained defamation)
identification
plaintiff must show court defamatory statement is
concerning him/her
ways identification can occur:
1. plaintiff may be explicitly named / 2. plaintiff
can be described
if a libelous statement does not make an explicit
identification what should the plaintiff do?
somehow prove that the defamatory words referred
to him/her
can groups sue for identification?
yes, if they are a small group it is easier to prove
libel. it also depends on the circumstances
defamation
plaintiff must prove the words were defamatory
2 kinds of defamatory words
1. "libel per se" / 2. "libel per quod"
libel per quod
words innocent at face value, but become
defamatory if viewers/readers know other facts
libel per se
words that are clearly defamatory (ex: thief, liar,
cheat)
single mistake rule
a rule that says it is not libelous to accuse a
professional person or businessperson of making a
single mistake because that is not enough to lower
person's reputation or esteem in the community
trade libel
also called "disparagement of property"; focuses
on the product itself
to win trade libel suit 3 things must be proven:
1. statements made about the product are false /2.
monetary loss because of false comments about the
product /3. false comment about product were
motivated by actual malice (ill will or bad feelings)
specific types of companies protected by statutes
banks, insurance companies, farmers (vegetables)
falsity
proving the defamatory material was false
first rule of proving falsity or truth
evidence presented must be direct and explicit
defamation by implication
if a story contains nothing but truthful statements
yet leaves important facts out it can still be
considered false
fault
proving the defendant was at fault