In he addressed spot on the reasons why legitimate journalists have to be cautious in what they write, even as the uninformed and strident flagellate the local media as 'lapdogs' and worse for not reporting every rumour that comes along.
A few quotes from the piece:
The current Defamation Act, passed under the BLP administration, replaced the old libel and slander laws, but it took so long to come out of wherever it had to go to get passed, and went through so much watering down that it was a big disappointment to me, at least.
There were some easements made in reporting on public affairs, but the main problem we all face as journalists and publishers was not addressed, and it concerns what I think of as the crossover from private to public life, and the individual’s change in status in terms of defamation when that occurs.
Nevetheless, I sally forth and once again say I agree with the concept that once you become a public figure, you understand that you will become a target for charges which as a private citizen you would be able to successfully sue for. To give you one example with recent echoes, you could ask a public official how he became a millionaire and you could also suggest he had been not nearly a millionaire before coming to office. He could then deny or confirm anything but he or she could not sue you, unless it could be proved you acted “with malice aforethought”, which is defined as knowing what you were charging was untrue, or having “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or not.
This absolves not only the leveller of the charges, as long as there was some reasonableness to the allegations, even if false or flawed, and the middleman (the journalist/publisher) for further disseminating the charges.
As I understand it, however, our current Defamation law still allows a person who takes up public office to remain classed as a private individual in terms of his personal life, and therefore there is no buffer of protection for either other politicians or the media to carry anything about that person which would be actionable by an individual not holding public office. THe reason is simple: In this line of argument, a public official’s motives, thinking, private business and so forth may all affect how he does his or her public job and are therefore par for the course in terms of public scrutiny, save only for the malice clause.
And therein lies many of the problems. In small societies such as those in the Caribbean, ones' personal and public life overlap so much more than in larger countries. Look for example at Jamaica, where former Junior Minister Kern Spencer stands accused of allegedly manipulating a government project to distribute free lightbulbs from the Cuban government, in such a way that his child mother and child mother's mother benefited.
And Caribbean politicians know it is so. And they like it so - make no mistake. Which is why adjustments to defamation acts have been mere twiddling and not the dramatic changes needed to give the media freedom with which to investigate and report.Meanwhile, they can say what the hell they like under the auspices of Parliamentary privilege - knowing full well that all parliamentary debates are broadcast.
But Hoyos puts it better.
In other words (mine), having to get the criticism 100% right would set the bar too high and thus make a mockery of the idea of being able to criticise your public servants, the court ruled (my layman, and possibly mangled, summary, please note).
Later, other cases extended this concept of public officials being less immune to public criticism and charges of wrong-doing than private individuals to people who live private lives but inject themselves into a particular debate that they feel strongly about. In essence, they become treatable as public figures in matters concerning the issue to which they have embroiled themselves and must take the heat as well.
All of the above does NOT pertain to Barbados, and that is why we must tread so gingerly in our reporting.The irony has always been, of course, that the politicians who keep the law restraining us from doing all this harm to public officials wound tightly around our journalistic necks, can themselves level any charge they want against anyone, public officer or private official, in Parliament, and we in the press can go right ahead and report it, no matter how untrue it may be, as long as we do so accurately.
0 comments:
Post a Comment