Read the "Sun" apology
By Roy Greenslade | Guardian
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
I can see how the Daily Mail tripped up. Clearly, a police source gave the paper false information, leading to its way-over-the-top report: "Hunger striker's £7m Big Mac."
There were also two unequivocal picture captions: "Tamil who cost London a fortune in policing was sneaking in fast-food" and "Tamil takeaways" plus, naturally, a picture of a Big Mac itself.
I noted the following day that the Mail carried a story of Subramanyam's denial, Tamil hunger striker: I did NOT break my fast, but it was a news report rather than an apology.
It suggested that the paper did not believe Subramanyam, because it also contained a (sort of) justification for its original story. One sentence said: "The Mail revealed how police surveillance teams saw fast food being smuggled to Mr Subramaniyan."
And the concluding sentence stated: "Scotland Yard last night refused to discuss whether it had received intelligence that the hunger striker had been passed food."
That's one of those intriguing non-comments. Did it mean that the story was correct but the police didn't want to say anything on the record? Or was it an indication that the story was just plain wrong?
The latter turned out to be the case. As the Mail's counsel said in court this morning, the paper "published the article in good faith based on information that, at the time, was understood to be reliable."
I can also understand how The Sun came a cropper. Its online team simply repeated the Mail story without checking on its veracity. And that, sadly, happens often - in print and online - when a story conforms to a paper's prejudices.
But the editors and journalists on both newspapers know all this. They would have been aware for many months of the shaky ground for the false allegations made against Subramanyam.
So, once again, the central problem is about the length of time it takes to obtain justice once people sue papers for libel.
The stories libelling Subramanyam were published in October last year, so he has had to wait almost 10 months for the story to be officially denied.
Why? Well, once newspapers are sued the legal machinery kicks in because, aside from reputation, money is at stake. In this case the claimant has been paid "substantial damages" (£80,000 evidently) plus his costs.
First off, papers try to bluff it out, hoping to justify the unjustifiable. Once they've lost that battle, it all comes down to haggling over the level of damages and the wording of statements.
The final agreement will have been hammered out in lengthy and costly negotiations. It is an unsatisfactory way of sorting out such matters.
Ahead of mooted libel law reform, there have been various ideas about dealing with these cases by the setting up a legal panel. This would be a much swifter and less costly way of settling disputes.
All three parties involved - the Mail, The Sun and the upset, libelled Subramanyam - would have benefited from the creation of such a sensible and practical arbitration panel.
© Guardian
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment