(no subject)
Oct. 31st, 2011 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I'm really starting to wonder about the state of libel laws in Britain. So, a few days ago I was reading about the row between John Terry and Anton Ferdinand (both professional footballers in England, Terry white, Ferdinand black, and Terry is alleged to have racially abused Ferdinand during a match recently). One of the newspapers with online articles on the subject was the Daily Fail, and I probably shouldn't have clicked on it in the first place. Partway through the article, we come across this gem:
"The incident will do his reputation even more damage following the scandal over the married father's infidelity with Wayne Bridge's girlfriend Vanessa Perroncel." Daily Mail, October 26, 2011
That refers to allegations which came out in January 2010, and over which Terry temporarily lost his captaincy of the England team. I was a little surprised to read that part, given that on July 4, 2010, the Daily Mail published this apology:
"On January 31, [2010] we published some personal information about Vanessa Perroncel concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
We have since been informed she would have preferred this to remain private and it was untrue in any case. We apologise to Miss Perroncel for any distress caused."
Basically, she sued them (along with several other media outlets) for defamation of character and invasion of privacy. They, along with the now-defunct News of the World, didn't seem to be able to back up the allegations, so they settled and published retractions. Rumour has it they also paid out pretty sizable financial settlements along with their retractions.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that if you are a media outlet which has retracted an allegation (and paid through the nose for making it in the first place), it would be a LOUSY idea to subsequently repeat the allegation in print, making no mention of your previous retraction. And yet they've done it. Wouldn't that just open them up to further litigation from Ms. Perroncel? And if not, why not?
I mean, it seems to me that if you can't prove something, you probably shouldn't have published it in the first place. And you definitely shouldn't KEEP saying it, as though if you say it often enough, it'll magically turn out to be true. I'd say something about how that's not how journalism works, but I don't think anybody's under the impression the Daily Fail publishes actual journalism. At the very least, I'd think your lawyers would make you stop saying it, to avoid further pay-outs.
"The incident will do his reputation even more damage following the scandal over the married father's infidelity with Wayne Bridge's girlfriend Vanessa Perroncel." Daily Mail, October 26, 2011
That refers to allegations which came out in January 2010, and over which Terry temporarily lost his captaincy of the England team. I was a little surprised to read that part, given that on July 4, 2010, the Daily Mail published this apology:
"On January 31, [2010] we published some personal information about Vanessa Perroncel concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
We have since been informed she would have preferred this to remain private and it was untrue in any case. We apologise to Miss Perroncel for any distress caused."
Basically, she sued them (along with several other media outlets) for defamation of character and invasion of privacy. They, along with the now-defunct News of the World, didn't seem to be able to back up the allegations, so they settled and published retractions. Rumour has it they also paid out pretty sizable financial settlements along with their retractions.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that if you are a media outlet which has retracted an allegation (and paid through the nose for making it in the first place), it would be a LOUSY idea to subsequently repeat the allegation in print, making no mention of your previous retraction. And yet they've done it. Wouldn't that just open them up to further litigation from Ms. Perroncel? And if not, why not?
I mean, it seems to me that if you can't prove something, you probably shouldn't have published it in the first place. And you definitely shouldn't KEEP saying it, as though if you say it often enough, it'll magically turn out to be true. I'd say something about how that's not how journalism works, but I don't think anybody's under the impression the Daily Fail publishes actual journalism. At the very least, I'd think your lawyers would make you stop saying it, to avoid further pay-outs.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-01 12:33 am (UTC)