Defamation in Sports Journalism
The issues journalists face from defaming a cricket star.
Breaking the defamation law presents a damaging legal challenge that journalists cannot escape. Publishing one false statement could cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages. I know I wouldn’t want to fork that out, would you?
This was the case for news outlet Fairfax Media who had to pay £173,000 for defamation this month. West Indies cricketer, Chris Gayle sued the company for publishing articles falsely accusing him of intentionally exposing himself to a female massage therapist at the 2015 cricket World Cup.
A six-figure fee may make any news outlet or journalist think twice about breaking the defamation law. Although, it seems like there may be more currently happening off the cricket field than on it.
Defamation Law
Before throwing you in at the deep end with an analysis of the Fairfax Media situation, it’s worth explaining what the defamation law is.
Defamation is the publication to a third party of an untrue, damaging statement about a person or organisation that seriously harms their reputation. If both parts are true, then there can be legal consequences for the person who made the statement.
Defamation can come in two forms:
- Libel: a written defamatory statement found in a newspaper, blog, social media etc
- Slander: a spoken defamatory statement
The defamation law is one of the most significant legal challenges facing journalists today. It sets the outlines for what can and can’t be circulated in the news. If a journalist is being sued over a defamatory claim, then they must have a strong defence in court to avoid punishment.
The law aims to strike a balance between allowing the free distribution of information, ideas and opinions, and protecting individuals and companies from having their reputations tarnished or destroyed.
The issues
The example of Gayle vs Fairfax Media highlights the key areas of defamation and what challenges journalists face. Let’s take a closer look.
1. What form of defamation was it?
A total of 28 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times and The Age contained the harmful statement about Gayle’s exposure in 2016.
The statement wasn’t just a one-off typo with it consistently appearing in articles. Being published several times means the false accusation was seen by many, which may cause increased harm of Gayle’s reputation in the public eye.
Result: Libel
2. Did the statement cause harm?
Gayle’s reputation was tarnished with calls to be banned from international cricket.
The verdict when taken to court:
“The defamation went to the heart of Mr Gayle’s professional life as a respected batsman.” — Supreme Court Justice Lucy McCallum.
Awareness is key here!
Journalists need to understand what they are saying and how it could harm someone. There is also a need to know what the law limits. In the case of Fairfax Media, it shows the dangers journalists are willing to put themselves in to create a story that grabs headlines. If this is the case for most journalists, then alarm bells should be ringing at how ethically wrong this is.
The law should force journalists to be considerate in their writing and weigh up if something is defamatory or not. The careless publishing of a defamatory statement could not only cost a fortune if taken to court but could harm the reputation and credibility of the publisher.
Result: Yes
3. Was the statement untrue?
Truth is considered the best defence against defamation. If a journalist can show that what they’re writing about is true, then they will be in the clear.
However, Fairfax Media failed to provide evidence to show the claim of Gayle’s indecent exposure as being truthful. Gayle and teammate Dwayne Smith, who was in the dressing room at the time, both testified that the cricketer did not expose himself.
The need for evidence is a must. Lazy and poorly researched journalism is not tolerated and will be caught out easily by the defamation law. Any statement published needs substantial evidence to avoid a defamation claim.
It is integral to fact check everything. The reliability of information and sources is a foundation of news writing. Journalists must be honest and should only say what they can prove to avoid tarnishing their reputation.
Result: Yes
4. Was there a defence?
Fairfax Media did put forward two defences: Truth and Qualified Privilege but both were thrown out.
As previously mentioned, the statement lacked evidence to be proven true.
This defence is used to show that defamatory articles were in the interest of the public and that the publisher acted reasonably. The jury in the Fairfax Media case found malice had been established, meaning the articles were published for an improper purpose.
Crossing the legal boundaries in journalism challenges the truth and newsworthiness of a story. It is concerning to see journalists not doing their job correctly and failing the public by providing news built on lies. Nobody in their right mind enjoys reading news that is fake.
Result: Yes & No
5. What was the cost?
Without hitting a single ball, Gayle was awarded £173,000 at the beginning of December 2018 from damages, a year after winning the defamation case. One piece of false information can come at a massive price.
Defamation doesn’t stop at just a monetary cost with the trust and integrity of the publisher also damaged. In some extremes, it could even see journalists lose work or their jobs.
It’s worth mentioning that there is the option to settle the defamation outside of court and not risk hefty legal costs.
Journalists cannot afford to make defamatory statements with it costing such a high price tag. The power to write something career-ending about an athlete that’s not true could see more harm done to the publisher.
Result: £173,000 in damages
The Outcome
Chris Gayle walks away with his reputation intact and money from damages in his back pocket. Fairfax Media has had to pay out a fortune for a big mistake. Their reputation may also be damaged with the credibility of news forever being under scrutiny.
I feel sorry for Gayle who has had to go through such a horrific ordeal which nearly ended his successful career.
This is not the first time a sportsperson has sued a media house for publishing a false story, and it may not be the last.
The defamation law shouldn’t be ignored in the world of journalism. This should be a lesson for any journalist or news outlet thinking of meddling with a sportsperson’s life. The consequences are severe if the defamation goes to court and lacks a defence.
The threat of a defamation claim does not mean a single bad word about someone can’t be published. Consideration does need to be taken to avoid any legal consequences. The law shouldn’t then prevent journalism from legitimate exposure of wrongdoing if the evidence is there.
It’s clear that every journalist needs to thoroughly understand the basic rules of this area of law to protect themselves better.
Be sure to follow me on Twitter and Facebook to stay up-to-date on the current issues in sports journalism.
