Opinion - News Analysis   

British tabloids to pay £600,000 in damages

Last week, a court ordered 11 heavy-weight British tabloids, including the Sun, the Daily Mail and the News of the World, to apologise and, together, cough up £600,000 in damages to a man they had falsely accused of being involved in the disappearance of a three-year-old girl, Madeleine McCann, while on a holiday with her parents in Portugal last year.

The newspapers also offered a public apology to two others and agreed to pay them substantial compensation for publishing defamatory reports about their role in the case.

The judgment will resonate in India where the media has been heavily criticised for its potentially libellous reporting of the Arushi Talwar murder case. But far from being repentant a number of journalists have justified their conduct and in turn accused the critics of protesting too much. I was surprised to hear a senior Hindi TV journalist angrily declare on an NDTV show that there was “no question” of saying sorry to the Talwars.

All one can say is that he is lucky to be plying his trade in a country where libel laws are so lax as to be almost non-existent and it is possible to get away with anything.

Not that Arushi-type coverage is uncommon in Britain. In fact, it is very common but there’s a significant difference. For one thing, such reporting is restricted largely to the lurid tabloids and, more importantly, they have to pay a price when caught on the wrong foot. Britain’s libel laws are robust enough to make sure that, when newspapers are sued, they are brought to account.

The argument, advanced by some Indian journalists, that the allegedly defamatory information came from police sources and those “close” to the Talwars is not a defence against libel. The man who has won £600,000 in damages in the McCann case was — like Dr. Talwar — a police suspect.

Robert Murat, a British citizen living in Portugal at the time of Madeliene’s disappearance, was formally declared a suspect (an “arguido”) by the Portuguese police and indeed still remains so. And, as in the Arushi case, much of the coverage was claimed to have been based on briefings by police sources and information picked up supposedly from people who claimed to know Mr. Murat. But this did not count as a defence in court.

The only ground on which a serious defence can be mounted is one of “public interest” and, for it to stand up in court, journalists must produce “credible” evidence to show that printing a story was, indeed, in public interest. Of late, judges have tended to interpret “public interest” defence rather liberally prompting criticism that it is likely to encourage irresponsible journalism.

Currentlly, the News of the World — one of the newspapers involved in the Murat case — is fighting a grim legal battle after it was sued by the Formula One boss Max Mosley for invasion of privacy over allegations that he organised a “Nazi-themed orgy” with hired called girls.

Mr. Mosley, president of the FIA, the governing body for Formula 1racing, and the son of the 1930s Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, was alleged by the newspaper to have played the roles of a concentration camp guard and an inmate during the alleged orgy at a flat in London’s fashionable Chelsea area. He has admitted using call girls but denied that the party had a “Nazi” theme.

The News of the World is claiming public interest defence. Its counsel told the court that “given the nature and the circumstances of the activities” that Mr. Mosley allegedly indulged in it was in public interest to expose them.

The case, which has been in the headlines for weeks, has reignited the controversy over the definition of “public interest” with critics saying that it needs to be defined more precisely so that newspapers know what will or will not pass as public interest when they decide to print a potentially defamatory story. In the absence of a clear definition, there’s a tendency among editors to take the plunge hoping to see off a legal challenge by taking a public interest plea.

The outcome of the case is being eagerly awaited in media circles. Experts say an adverse verdict against the News of the World is likely to have a profound impact on how newspapers approach stories affecting people’s reputations.

But, how about giving some teeth to libel laws in India?

Not in India.

The xenophobic reaction of some Britons to outsourcing call-centres to India has prompted several leading companies to claim a new USP to lure customers — namely, that all their call-centres are in the U.K.

“You won’t have to speak to guys in Mumbai,” a bank manager was heard telling a potential customer citing it as one of the big advantages of a new scheme the bank is offering to its high-end value customers. But then he froze as he suddenly realised that the customer was an Indian who might in fact be more comfortable to talking to someone in Mumbai!

***************

...And finally.

Want to know why, at the more trendy bars, they insist on playing loud music?

Apparently, people tend to drink faster — and more — when loud music is playing in the background. Which means they spend more cash at the bar.

“Fast music can cause fast drinking… and music can cause a person to spend more time in a bar,” Professor Nicolas Gueguen, a French academic who led the research, said last week.

Thank you, Prof. for letting us into the secret.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Costs of realpolitik
Children and cholesterol
Deepening gloom in Pakistan
An endgame with no clear winners reality check
British tabloids to pay £600,000 in damages
Why Venetians are deserting Venice
Corrections and clarifications
The trust vote
Nuclear deal
NREGA programme

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu