Main section
-
Top story
Platform - A right to reply
150/Robert Henderson
DATELINE: 25/2/06
A statutory right of reply (RoR) is a thing of journalistic nightmares. That tells you it is the best remedy for those who cannot afford to sue for libel. But the media is looking a gift horse in the mouth for a RoR would provide the strongest guard against any government desire to formally regulate newspapers and to further interfere with broadcasters, because an effective cheap means of rapid redress available to everyone, including politicians incidentally, capsizes the prime argument for state regulation. A RoR is the perfect non-political remedy for media abuse because it is a self-sustaining and self-regulating mechanism.
Costs could easily be kept low. First, by making libel the only reason for refusing a RoR and then only for that part of a proposed reply which was libellous. Second, by empowering Small Claims Courts to decide whether a claimed libel exists and, if the court does not agree that it does, to order the newspaper or broadcaster to publish the disputed reply. There should be no higher court appeal against the Small Claims Court's decision unless the appellant pays both sides' costs. This would allow justice while preventing those seeking a RoR from being intimidated out of their right by the threat of heavy costs.
How would it work?
The qualification for a RoR would be simple and objective: a media outlet has printed or broadcast material about an individual.
In the case of newspapers I would give a respondent 300 words as an automatic right and another 500 words for every 1000 words published about him or her over 1500 words. The respondent's reply should be printed on the same page as the story to which they are responding. If the newspaper responds to a reply then the person responded to would get another RoR.
Broadcasting is more problematic but a written reply by the person criticised could be read out on air. Where the person has the confidence to speak for themselves, they should be allowed to broadcast their reply.
Practical fears
The media will say that this is completely impractical, that their papers and broadcasts would be full of nothing but replies. In fact, the general experience of the introduction of new opportunities offered to the public is that there is an initial burst of activity which soon settles down to a hard core of those willing to make the effort. If the introduction of a right to reply proved the sociological odd man out and the media was overwhelmed, the system could be reviewed.
A narrow RoR would be worthless. A RoR should not be limited to inaccuracy. There is often no easy way of proving the truth or otherwise of ostensible "facts". If a RoR was restricted to inaccuracy, the media would assuredly undermine it by arguing interminably.
Then there is opinion. This is often more damaging than inaccuracy. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between fact and opinion. Suppose I write of an actress that "she is a whore"that is a statement of fact which, in principle, can be tested objectively. But what if I write "she has the morals of a whore"? Is that fact or opinion?
The present non-legal remedies
These are both cumbersome and unfair. For example, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is comprised entirely of people drawn from the media or from those associated in some way with the media, and the organisation is funded by the press. Unsurprisingly, a non-celebrity complainant to the PCC rarely succeeds.
But this misses a larger point. No matter how formally honest any media regulating body was, it could no more serve the public generally than the legal profession can serve the general public in actions for libel where there is no legal aid.
The numbers of complaints actually considered formally by the PCC and the broadcasting authorities is minute, running into a few hundred a year — most complaints never get a full hearing or investigation. If the public began to use these bodies enthusiastically they would be overwhelmed.
The effect on the media
Faced with an immediate published response to any inaccuracy or abusive opinion and the possibility of having to submit themselves to public examination in a small claims court, journalists and broadcasters would cease to be cavalier about what they write.
The present relationship between the media and anyone they choose to criticise is analogous to someone who binds a man and then punches him. It is not a contest but an act of cowardice.
Last modified: Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Previous right of reply stories
Right of Reply in Europe
Right of Reply and Press Standards Bill
Second reading for Right of Reply
WREKIN MP LAUNCHES PRESS ‘RIGHT OF PEPLY’ BILL
Right of Reply Bill published
-
Notices
Events & Announcements
Fringe meeting at the TUC
DATELINE: 26/8/10Tuesday 14 September 6.00pm – 8.00pm Mayor’s Parlour, Manchester Town Hall, M2 5DB
‘Media for All – the Democratic Challenge’.
An open event hosted by Making Good Society and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (CPBF), supported by the Carnegie UK Trust.
DOWNLOAD FREEPRESS NOW
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Download PDFs of Freepress here.
MEDIA FOR ALL CONFERENCE 09
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Media for All Conference 09
Conference Papers
-
Previous stories