|
I have a question on a potential case for defamation on TV:
As a producer of a small community television show I assigned a reporter to
go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My reporter
asked the following question:
Reporter: "why did the police come to the scene?"
Interviewee: "Because the situation got out of control. At one point the
police carried away Mr. xyz"
This story aired on our local community channel. The problem is that Mr.
xyz denies that he got carried away by the police and threatens legal action
against 1) the interviewee because **allegedly** made false statements, 2)
against myself (producer) because I allowed to air unverified statements and
3) against the community channel because they aired this interview.
Personally, I don't know if the police carried away Mr.. xyz. (not to be
confused with arrested) Perhaps the interviewee meant that a police officer
carried away Mr. xyz for a talk, or questioning, or whatever. The fact is
that I don't know if that happened, nor I have means of verifying it, nor we
said it. we only aired the statements (uncut) of the interviewee who said
it.
I understand that Mr.. xyz can threaten to sue the interviewee if indeed he
made false statements during an interview. BUT, where is the reporter,
producer and TV station at fault here. We just aired a statement without
any further opinion. We did not confirmed nor denied anything. Nor we have
the means of verifying ALL statements that people say to us during a TV
interview
Mr. xyz says that I should have edited out any statements made by the
interviewee which I haven't personally verified. To my understanding,
Freedom of the press should allow individuals to express their opinion and
we to cover them. If somebody makes false statements on TV, they should be
held responsible for what they said; not the producer / reporter/ station.
I don't think that we should be held liable for somebody's else [true or
false] statements
Are there any case laws or something in the constitution that protects
reporters from statements made by interviewees? I'm in Quebec, Canada.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, "Joseph Brown" <joebrown@wdontspam.edu>
said/asked in substance:
I'm in Quebec, Canada, and have some
questions about defamation law.
In evaluating whatever responses there may be to your posting/query,
bear in mind that Canadian defamation law differs in numerous material
respects from defamation law principles as they generally prevail
within the U.S. and also that, within Canada, defamation principles as
interpreted/applied in Quebec are also in many respects different than
elsewhere in the country.
I produce a small community television news show
on which we broadcast a segment in which, in answer
to why police appeared at an event being discussed,
an interviewee said,
"Because the situtation got out of control.
At one point, the police carried away Mr. X."
Mr. X now denies he got carried away by the police at
that event and says he is planning to sue the interviewee
for making what Mr. X contends to be a false . . .
. . . because it is also "defamatory"? . . .
. . . in this respect and also me as the producer who
decided to broadcast and the station that thereupon
did broadcast this interview.
Personally, I don't know if the police carried away
Mr. X (not to be confused with arrested)
. . . except that not being "confused" between a statement, "Mr. X
was arrested" and a statement, "Mr X was carried away [by the police]"
does not dispose of the quesiton whether the latter is/isn't
defamatory . . .
. . . nor do I have means of verifying it . . . .
. . . except that it is not correct that you did not "have means of
verifying [the broadcast statement" since, to the contrary, you or
some reporter acting on your behalf might have asked the police
whether they carried Mr. X away or might have asked Mr. X what
happened or might have asked others at the scene when Mr. X was said
to have been carried away by the police what they saw.
This is not to say that (whether for journalistic or law-related
purposes) you necessarily _ought_ have make such inquiries. But your
apparently presumed and attempted complete disclaimer of any/all
ability ("means") in any/all circumstances of verifying what you chose
to brodcast and, relatedly, of disclaiming responsibilty for what you
chose to broadcast is not well-founded.
We only aired the statements (uncut) of the interviewee
who said it and yet, even if the interviewee might be
suable for defamatory statements that person said, how
can the reporter and the producer and the TV statement
also be suable just by reason of having aired the unedited
statement of the interviewee without any further opinion
by the interviewee or the broadcaster?
The general rule (applicable, too, in Quebec) is that the _publishers_
of a defamatory statement are (subject, of course, to any number of
defenses including a variety of so-called "privileges" or comparable
principles) subject to being sued (and, if the allegations/claims are
proven to the court's satisfaction, to an imposition of liability) for
defamatory statements they publish.
Nor do we have the means of verifying ALL statements
that people say to us during a TV interview
You have the means to take reasonable steps to investigate whether
statements of asserted fact you choose to publish are probably true.
Mr. X claims I should have deleted statements
about him made by the interviewee which I haven't
personally verified.
He is not likely to be able to find support in the law for such a
broad claim, especially if the events in question were otherwise
newsworthy.
To my understanding, Freedom of the press should
allow individuals to express their opinion and we to
cover them. If somebody makes false statements on
TV, they should be held responsible for what they said;
not the producer / reporter/ station.
This, too, is an overbroad statement, since (among other things) you
are not distinguishing adequately between what you refer to as
"opinion" and a statement of (claimed) "fact" that is false and also
damaging to the target's reputation _or_ (sometimes in Canada) to
statements which even if true are nonetheless published with the
intent of damaging the target's reputation.
Are there any case laws or something in the constitution
that protects reporters from statements made by interviewees?
As noted, do NOT rely on a solely (or even substantially) U.S.-based
descriptions of what are said to be U.S. principles for what will
probably apply in Quebec, Canada.
Your posting/query suggests, however, that you would benefit from
consulting with a well-informed attorney in your area for guidance not
just about defamation principles as they probably would apply to you
and to your TV station but also for counselling how in general to
respond to (and also for advice about the sorts of circumstances in
which it may be desirable not to respond to) what you characterize as
being "threatened" especially if by an irate person depicted in news
broadcasts of public/journalistic interest.
|
| |
| |
Joseph Brown wrote:
I have a question on a potential case for defamation on TV:
As a producer of a small community television show I assigned a reporter
to go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My
reporter asked the following question:
Reporter: "why did the police come to the scene?"
Interviewee: "Because the situation got out of control. At one point the
police carried away Mr. xyz"
The person would have to sue the person who made the statement.
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done "with
malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they only
report what has taken place, or is taking place.
The words "carried away" are not necessearily defamatory or false.
It is that person's interpretation of what was witnessed.
I don't see how he could expect to win the case.
|
| |
| |
Joseph Brown wrote:
The person would have to sue the person who made the statement.
He could. However, he could also sue the producer of the broadcast.
However, the defamation standard would be elevated, i.e. Times v. Sullivan
absence of malice.
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done "with
malice".
Wrong. Why do you always do this?
The absence of malice standard applies to news media. Is does not apply to
the original speaker who was interviewed.
At least that's my understanding.
And it's wrong.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
only
report what has taken place, or is taking place.
The words "carried away" are not necessearily defamatory or false.
It is that person's interpretation of what was witnessed.
I don't see how he could expect to win the case.
|
| |
| |
I have a question on a potential case for defamation on TV:
As a producer of a small community television show I assigned a reporter
to
go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My reporter
asked the following question:
Reporter: "why did the police come to the scene?"
Interviewee: "Because the situation got out of control. At one point the
police carried away Mr. xyz"
This story aired on our local community channel. The problem is that Mr.
xyz denies that he got carried away by the police and threatens legal
action
against 1) the interviewee because **allegedly** made false statements, 2)
against myself (producer) because I allowed to air unverified statements
and
3) against the community channel because they aired this interview.
Have you tried offering this "mr xyz" an interview wherein he can state his
side of the story? Even if he were to decline, I think a WRITTEN offer of
such would go a long way toward protecting you in court. And if he accepts,
he pretty much has lost his grounds to sue. (maybe not completely, but it
sure would be a weak case to try to argue).
Also, remember, TRUTH is an absolute defense against defamation. See if you
can obtain a police report of the incident.
Finally - do you have E&O insurance? If so, contact your insurance company
for advice.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
He could. However, he could also sue the producer of the broadcast.
However, the defamation standard would be elevated, i.e. Times v.
Sullivan absence of malice.
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done
"with malice".
Wrong. Why do you always do this?
The absence of malice standard applies to news media. Is does not apply
to the original speaker who was interviewed.
At least that's my understanding.
And it's wrong.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
only
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:13:34 -0500, "Joseph Brown"
<joebrown@wdontspam.edu> wrote:
This story aired on our local community channel. The problem is that Mr.
xyz denies that he got carried away by the police and threatens legal action
Try to bail out first by inviting him to your studio to do an
interview about his version (present it as follow-up or something).
Or, read a statement saying the same thing. Then you gave him the
chance to give his version of the story too :)
cheers
-martin-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia
"better to let them do it imperfectly than to do it perfectly yourself, for it
is their country - and your time is short" T.E. Lawrence
|
| |
| |
In this particular case we have the utterance of words which describes what
one person felt was the best description of the events for the moment.
The plaintiff is arguing the poor choice of words.
"I saw the man being carried away by the police".
That is not defamatory.
Isn't that defamatory if, in fact, what he saw was Mr. Smith being
apologized to by the police and Mr. Smith returning to his home, while
the police left in another direction?
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
Have you tried offering this "mr xyz" an interview wherein he can state
his
side of the story?
verbally, over the phone: yes. I'll make it in writing.
Finally - do you have E&O insurance? If so, contact your insurance company
for advice.
We are a small community ethnic channel (public access - kind of thing). We
have no lawyers nor errors and omissions insurance. Each member of our crew
volunteers for the production and we absorb the costs.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done
"with malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
|
| |
| |
Many times you may be threatened with suit but unless he has lots of cash
floating around for attorneys.. He will have to find one who works on a
contingency basis.. Based on what you have stated, I don't think it will
happen..
Steve
PTRAVEL wrote:
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done
"with malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
|
| |
| |
Joseph Brown wrote:
I have a question on a potential case for defamation on TV:
As a producer of a small community television show I assigned a reporter
to go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My
reporter asked the following question:
Reporter: "why did the police come to the scene?"
Interviewee: "Because the situation got out of control. At one point the
police carried away Mr. xyz"
This story aired on our local community channel. The problem is that Mr.
xyz denies that he got carried away by the police and threatens legal
action against 1) the interviewee because **allegedly** made false
statements, 2) against myself (producer) because I allowed to air
unverified statements and 3) against the community channel because they
aired this interview.
Personally, I don't know if the police carried away Mr.. xyz. (not to be
confused with arrested) Perhaps the interviewee meant that a police
officer carried away Mr. xyz for a talk, or questioning, or whatever. The
fact is that I don't know if that happened, nor I have means of verifying
it, nor we said it. we only aired the statements (uncut) of the
interviewee who said it.
I understand that Mr.. xyz can threaten to sue the interviewee if indeed
he made false statements during an interview. BUT, where is the reporter,
producer and TV station at fault here. We just aired a statement without
any further opinion. We did not confirmed nor denied anything. Nor we
have the means of verifying ALL statements that people say to us during a
TV interview
Mr. xyz says that I should have edited out any statements made by the
interviewee which I haven't personally verified. To my understanding,
Freedom of the press should allow individuals to express their opinion
and we to cover them. If somebody makes false statements on TV, they
should be held responsible for what they said; not the producer /
reporter/ station.
I don't think that we should be held liable for somebody's else [true or
false] statements
Are there any case laws or something in the constitution that protects
reporters from statements made by interviewees? I'm in Quebec, Canada.
I lived for two winters in colorado working at a ski resort.
In the local paper they had a story about a man who had been arrested for
DUI while on a suspened license.
That was the official version from the police.
The next week they printed the version offered by the person involved.
It would appear that the officer involved in the situation totally lied
about his questioning of a person who was "ON FOOT" and walking "TO" the
bar, not from it.
I agree. Have the man appear on camera and let him state his side of the
story.
Perhpas you could invite the "witness" along and the two could explain the
situation better.
|
| |
| |
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c3nohr$2afcko$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de:
So what? If the statement was false, it's defamation. Period.
That's not true. A statement can be false without being defamatory. I
could falsely portray you as a glorified war hero. That would be
actionable, but as false light, not defamation.
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Joseph Brown wrote:
The person would have to sue the person who made the statement.
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done "with
malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they only
report what has taken place, or is taking place.
The words "carried away" are not necessearily defamatory or false.
It is that person's interpretation of what was witnessed.
I don't see how he could expect to win the case.
Please ignore Richard's advise. He is a known pedophile who
gets all of his "legal" information from old American
TV shows like "LA Law" and "Quincy". He has time
to watch these shows because he has been unemployed
for over a year.
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
PTRAVEL wrote:
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done
"with malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Joseph Brown wrote:
I lived for two winters in colorado working at a ski resort.
Liar. You wouldn't know "working" if it jumped up
and bit you in the ass.
In the local paper they had a story about a man who had been arrested for
DUI while on a suspened license.
Your lack of English skills is mind boggling. "suspened"?????
That was the official version from the police.
As told by Bullis.
The next week they printed the version offered by the person involved.
It would appear that the officer involved in the situation totally lied
about his questioning of a person who was "ON FOOT" and walking "TO" the
bar, not from it.
Ah, once again, your arch enemy, Barney Fife, foiled again by
another "honest" citizen.
I agree. Have the man appear on camera and let him state his side of the
story.
Perhpas you could invite the "witness" along and the two could explain the
situation better.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
|
| |
| |
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c3nohr$2afcko$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de:
That's not true. A statement can be false without being defamatory. I
could falsely portray you as a glorified war hero. That would be
actionable, but as false light, not defamation.
You need to review your articles. My sentence said if _the_ statement was
false, i.e. the statement which is the subject of this thread, not if _a_
statement is false.
Reading. It's fundamental.
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
In order to win his case, he would have to prove the report was done
"with malice".
At least that's my understanding.
It's rare that a "news" reporter or producer is ever sued because they
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Please ignore Richard's advise. He is a known pedophile who
gets all of his "legal" information from old American
TV shows like "LA Law" and "Quincy"
Don't forget "CHIPS," "Get Smart," "E.R.," & of course just about any
program on Nickelodeon.
.. He has time
to watch these shows because he has been unemployed
for over a year.
|
| |
| |
Bzzzt! wrote:
Richard wrote:
Liar. You wouldn't know "working" if it jumped up
and bit you in the ass.
In the local paper they had a story about a man who had been arrested
for DUI while on a suspened license.
Your lack of English skills is mind boggling. "suspened"?????
You have skills? at what?
That was the official version from the police.
As told by Bullis.
City was DIllon, Colarodo and took place in December of 1985.
The next week they printed the version offered by the person involved.
It would appear that the officer involved in the situation totally lied
about his questioning of a person who was "ON FOOT" and walking "TO" the
bar, not from it.
Ah, once again, your arch enemy, Barney Fife, foiled again by
another "honest" citizen.
Dillon Co. cops could very well be relatives of Barney.
I worked 2nd shift at "club med" for a few weeks, and lived with a couple
who bought a townhome in Dillon.
Every night when I got off work, I was greeted by the local officer at the
exit ramp and he followed me through town.
Why? I had out of state license plates on my car.
Apparently, Dillon cops don't like strangers in town. Not even seasonal
employees.
I agree. Have the man appear on camera and let him state his side of the
story.
Perhpas you could invite the "witness" along and the two could explain
the situation better.
|
| |
| |
Your first step should be to clear the record and reduce his damages and
your liability. Since I'm not a lawyer, however, you should ask them about
the law in Canada.
I know if I were the Plaintiff I'd go after the people who said the remarks
and use the TV station as the star witness, but I'm not the Plaintiff.
--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
I have a question on a potential case for defamation on TV:
As a producer of a small community television show I assigned a reporter
to
go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My reporter
asked the following question:
Reporter: "why did the police come to the scene?"
Interviewee: "Because the situation got out of control. At one point the
police carried away Mr. xyz"
This story aired on our local community channel. The problem is that Mr.
xyz denies that he got carried away by the police and threatens legal
action
against 1) the interviewee because **allegedly** made false statements, 2)
against myself (producer) because I allowed to air unverified statements
and
3) against the community channel because they aired this interview.
Personally, I don't know if the police carried away Mr.. xyz. (not to be
confused with arrested) Perhaps the interviewee meant that a police
officer
carried away Mr. xyz for a talk, or questioning, or whatever. The fact is
that I don't know if that happened, nor I have means of verifying it, nor
we
said it. we only aired the statements (uncut) of the interviewee who said
it.
I understand that Mr.. xyz can threaten to sue the interviewee if indeed
he
made false statements during an interview. BUT, where is the reporter,
producer and TV station at fault here. We just aired a statement without
any further opinion. We did not confirmed nor denied anything. Nor we have
the means of verifying ALL statements that people say to us during a TV
interview
Mr. xyz says that I should have edited out any statements made by the
interviewee which I haven't personally verified. To my understanding,
Freedom of the press should allow individuals to express their opinion and
we to cover them. If somebody makes false statements on TV, they should be
held responsible for what they said; not the producer / reporter/ station.
I don't think that we should be held liable for somebody's else [true or
false] statements
Are there any case laws or something in the constitution that protects
reporters from statements made by interviewees? I'm in Quebec, Canada.
|
| |
| |
Are there any case laws or something in the constitution that protects
reporters from statements made by interviewees? I'm in Quebec, Canada.
Canada is silly. Canada has that political prisoner they are going on about
in alt.politics.libertarian. Leave there, and come to the U.S. Then might
have something to help you with.
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Bzzzt! wrote:
In the local paper they had a story about a man who had been arrested
for DUI while on a suspened license.
You have skills? at what?
That was the official version from the police.
City was DIllon, Colarodo and took place in December of 1985.
The next week they printed the version offered by the person involved.
It would appear that the officer involved in the situation totally lied
about his questioning of a person who was "ON FOOT" and walking "TO" the
bar, not from it.
Dillon Co. cops could very well be relatives of Barney.
I worked 2nd shift at "club med" for a few weeks, and lived with a couple
who bought a townhome in Dillon.
Every night when I got off work, I was greeted by the local officer at the
exit ramp and he followed me through town.
Why?
Because of complaints from teachers at the local elementary school
reporting a scary looking guy scoping out the little kids on the playground?
Because cops, parents, kids, blind deaf mutes, and Panther II trucking
recognizes your pedo tendencies from a mile away???
I had out of state license plates on my car.
And kiddie pron in the trunk.
Apparently, Dillon cops don't like strangers in town. Not even seasonal
employees.
who happen to be pedophiles.
I agree. Have the man appear on camera and let him state his side of the
story.
Perhpas you could invite the "witness" along and the two could explain
the situation better.
|
| |
| |
Alex Cain wrote:
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:13:49 -0800, "DK"
<tony@getridofthispart.medievalmarketplace.com> in misc.legal, wrote
the following:
to go out and take several interviews on a particular subject. My reporter
Have you tried offering this "mr xyz" an interview wherein he can state his
side of the story? Even if he were to decline, I think a WRITTEN offer of
such would go a long way toward protecting you in court. And if he accepts,
he pretty much has lost his grounds to sue. (maybe not completely, but it
sure would be a weak case to try to argue).
He would still have grounds for suit, but the offer to allow him to
state his rebuttal in the same medium in which the alleged defamatory
statement was made _may_ mitigate damages owed to him, if the Court sees
the community channel was attempting to "make right" the situation. The
Canadian law requires an offer to make amends as a means to mitigate the
defamatory damages.
However, as was pointed out very early in this thread, it was incumbent
upon the community channel to _verify_ whether the statement made to
them (Mr XYZ was carried off by police, with the implication he was the
culprit of the incident) was correct. As you note, there would be a
police report IF Mr. XYZ was detained and a report filed.
If no report was filed or the interviewee was merely mistaken, then the
community channel may have some problems since a) they (the community
channel) did not verify the statement as true before they aired it _as
true_, and b) they (the community channel) had final say on whether or
not the statement _would be aired_.
If they chose to air it without verification, then they were negligent
as they, as a broadcaster, had a duty to do so. Canadian law appears to
be much stricter in defamation law in this regards than the US, for
example.
At least this is the way I am reading the scenario presented under
Canadian law, which is not my forte, but seems fairly straightforward. I
suggest a review of Canadian defamation law elements at
http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-defam.htm
Canadian Defamation Law
and
http://www.ulcc.ca/en/us/index.cfm?sec=1&sub=1d1
DEFAMATION ACT, April 1996
Negligence is _not_ a defense in a defamation case, and defamatory
material is presumed to be false and malicious under Canadian law.
There are special provisions in the law for broadcasters, so the
original inquirer needs to find an attorney in Canada who is cognizant
of this law, and see if the requirements apply to him, IMO.
Regards --
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
The Good news is that since then, someone came forward with an amateur video
*showing* a police lieutenant (supervisor) in fact, politely grabbing mr's
xyz's arm and showing him the door. mr. xyz provided some degree of
resistance. The scene cuts there.
Since then, mr. xyz relaxed and stopped barking.
What shall I do now? This caused us lots of stress to all of our volunteers.
I'm expecting at least an apology. If not, I'm thinking of interviewing the
police officer who grabbed mr. xyz from his arm AND THEN immediately after
ask for an interview with mr xyz... If he denies, even better. It's time for
him to pay back all the stress that caused to our volunteers who work hard.
somebody suggested that:
"I know if I were the Plaintiff I'd go after the people who said the remarks
and use the TV station as the star witness, but I'm not the Plaintiff."
True and smart. But mr. xyz decided to play his game in a way that could
backfire. He chose it this way after all. The lesson for us is (and thanks
to this man) is that when a name is mentioned, either cut it, or confirm it.
Thanks everybody for your opinions.
|
| |
| |
|
