5A Defamation : Example
A programme has been commissioned about the closure of a large manufacturing company. The programme-makers interview some employees who have lost their jobs. Some of those interviewed criticise the management of the factory and blame the directors for the company's demise. The company is named and the directors, of which there are only a handful, are identifiable. In addition, a couple of interviewees talk about the directors' incompetence in making specific business decisions which turned out to be damaging to the company. One of the interviewees even suggests that the directors stole money from the firm.
To suggest that the directors are incompetent is defamatory. If these comments are to remain in the programme, the programme-makers must first find out on what basis the interviewees make the allegation i.e. what are the damaging business decisions he refers to. They would then need to make proper and rigorous journalistic enquiries to corroborate the facts i.e. that in fact these business decisions were made, that they were damaging to the company and that they were made by the directors (each of them). These facts might be corroborated by speaking to others that have direct knowledge of what happened or perhaps there is documentary evidence e.g. copies of letters, company resolutions, emails. The programme-makers may also need to speak to an expert in business matters for confirmation and an explanation of why the decisions that were taken could be classed as incompetent.
If the programme-makers were unable to corroborate the facts, it is likely that the comments would not be able to be included. However, if they were corroborated satisfactorily and the interviewees' comments seemed reasonable based on the facts (which are provable), then, but only then, should the programme makers/broadcaster move towards seeking a response from those that were criticised.
Comments about directors stealing money are of course defamatory and would require very rigorous proof. On what basis is the allegation being made? What proof does the person making the allegation actually have? Is it just rumour, unsupported by evidence or hard facts?
A broadcaster would need very convincing evidence i.e. convincing testimony of reliable witnesses of fact and/or documentary evidence to prove this allegation before moving towards seeking a response from the subject(s) of the allegations.