UK libel in the New Republic (plus journalists’ Wikipedia vanity)

Posted by Martin Stabe on 27 April 2007 at 10:19
Tags: Journalism, Libel, Wikipedia, Wikis

Press Gazette’s diarist, the shadowy Axegrinder, is becoming more web-savvy. The online version of his column is now a blog, and this week’s installment contains two items that could also have ended up here, and will be of interest to the newsroom geeks who read this blog.

UK libel law and online publication

In one post, Axegrinder notes a spat between Indy columnist Johann Hari and historian Andrew Roberts that is being played out in the US political magazine The New Republic. The dispute leaves Roberts suggesting that had Hari’s article appeared in a British magazine, he might have sued for libel.

As m’learned friend Axe rightly notes, the location of TNR is neither here nor there. Under British law, online “publication” occurs whenever – and wherever – someone reads something. The fact that Axe read about their dispute on the TNR web site while in the UK means that Hari’s screed has been “published” in the UK as far as the British courts are concerned. In fact, if you are in the UK and followed the link above, you just caused it to be published yet again.

Both TNR and Hari are, theoretically, at risk of receiving Roberts’ writs. But don’t hold your breath.

Journalist’s Wikipedia vanity

In another post, Axe pokes fun at Daily Mail columnist Petronella Wyatt, who created her own Wikipedia entry and was then horrified to discover it had been vandalised.

But Axe missed the netiquette angle: Wyatt was probably asking for her comeuppance because she had obviously violating Wikipedia etiquette.

By confessing in her column that she created her own entry, Wyatt was, in fact, boasting about breaking one of Wikipedia’s rules. Autobiographical entries and obvious self-aggrandisement are frowned upon by Wikipedians.

If you look at the entry now, you will find that it has been locked to prevent further vandalism — and is also being considered for deletion because it violates the anti-vanity rule. The matter is currently being adjudicated by expereinced Wikipedians.

Also notable is that Wyatt used the experience to criticise Wikipedia, which led one editor of her entry to add the following paragraph, which has since been deleted again:

On 23 April 2007, Ms Wyatt wrote an article in the Daily Mail about the inaccuracies and practical flaws that Wikipedia suffers from. She created her own entry containing facts about her career. After noticing that her page had been vandalised, Ms Wyatt got in touch with Wikipedia and complained. Wikipedia thereby locked her entry to prevent further vandalism. It should be noted that due to the open nature of Wikipedia, articles can suffer from occasional, or sometimes in the case of popular articles, regular bouts of vandalism, necessitating correction from other users. This can be mediated somewhat by placing articles that are frequent targets of vandalism under varying levels of protection.

Axegrinder as ‘News Sushi’

Before anyone asks, Axegrinder is one part of Press Gazette that I’m not ashamed to be repurposing in what Guardian blogs editor Kevin Anderson wonderfully calls the “news sushi” approach to newspaper blogs.

The Axe blog isn’t really a proper blog. It doesn’t really seek to join an online conversation, and only rarely links to other blogs. But it is published in Wordpress because blog technology is particularly suited to this sort of column.

Diary columns like Axe consist already consist of bite-size chunks of information, which is perfect for the blog treatment. Axegrinder’s new blog cuts the column apart into a number of individual posts. Each post is tagged with the names of the protagonists, meaning that as the blog’s archive grows, there will be a unique (and, in a deliciously evil twist, very search-friendly) page chronicling that individual’s diary-worthy peccadillos.

5 comments

Constructive Criticism…

Posted by Julie Tomlin on 3 May 2006 at 14:44
Tags: Ashley Cole, BBC, Blogs, Journalism, Libel, Newspapers, Sources, Television

Blogger Guido Fawkes has been on the case of BBC political correspondent Nick Robinson. Last week he picked up on his claim in his blog that the Mirror’s Prescott story was a “bombshell”.  This week he sets out some questions in response to Robinson’s 29 April entry “I’m not covering up for Prescott”
Firstly, he asks does Robinson know now of any other Prescott mistresses?

Secondly, if he does, what is the public interest in witholding her name from the public if she turns out, like Tracey, to be paid out of the public purse?

Thirdly, if he doesn’t know of any other mistresses and another subsequently comes out of the woodwork, will he feel he has done his best for the British public?

Robinson does seem to be partly entering into the spirit of blogging - unlike some newspaper (Trevor) correspondents who have launched their own blogs, Robinson does allow comments to be posted. And in his blog he does respond to allegations that ave been made that the BBC censored the Prescott story and that the reward was an exclusive with PM Tony Blair

Guido notes with satisfaction that Robinson is a reader of this blog and that he “took the hint” and clarified his “bombshell” comments. But he committed a “major breach of netiquette” says Guido for failing to link to the site despite quoting from it liberally.

“Since the Ashley Cole Case the Dead Tree Press (and the broadcast media) have become nervous about referring to, or directly linking readers and listeners to writ-risky websites,” writes Guido. “Hence the vague references to “political websites” rather than Guido or Iain Dale. Journalists are actually ringing Guido up for quotes, which they then attribute to an unnamed “controversial political website”.

Guido blames media lawyers for scaring media executives into restricting journalists from referring to risk taking bloggers. As with the Ashley Cole case it seems the relationship between “msm” and new media needs working on.

Star to apologise to Ashley Cole

Posted by Martin Stabe on 15 March 2006 at 13:03
Tags: Ashley Cole, Journalism, Libel, News of the World, Online, Privacy, Star, Sun

The Daily Star is to apologise to Ashley Cole for retelling the “gay orgy” allegations about the footballer made by another tabloid, according to Pink News, a web site at the heart of the increasingly complex legal dispute.

The Arsenal and England star’s suit for libel, harassment and “false privacy” against the News of the World and the Sun emerged when Pink News revealed that a highly distorted photograph that the NoW had printed with stories making allegations about an unnamed gay footballer showed Cole.

The other man in the photograph, Ian Thompson (better known as DJ Masterstepz), later announced that he, too, would be suing the tabloids. Lawyers for the DJ also indicated that they may pursue an action for breach of copyright, since the photograph belonged to Thompson.
Neither man intends to sue Pink News, but the News of the World has indicated that it might pursue the web site under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
Cole’s lawyers are advertising an online survey about the case on Pink News.

Fear the trolls!

Posted by Martin Stabe on 13 March 2006 at 12:05
Tags: Blogs, Contempt of Court, Guardian, Journalism, Libel

The Guardian’s new blog, Comment Is Free, launches tomorrow.

Ben Hammersley, who has been working on the project, says they are still burning the midnight oil up Farringdon Road putting the finishing touches on the software behind the blog. Still in progresses is a solution to the much-discussed problem of handling blog comments:

Perhaps the most prominent liberal newspaper in the anglophone world, opening a weblog for comment and opinion, with free and open user commenting is, to put it mildly, asking for trouble. Even more so as we come under UK libel law, rather than US. This means that libellous comments left on the site might potentially cost the newspaper a considerable amount of money. No one has ever offered this sort of content to the wider world in this sort of legal, political, or cultural context. This means that we have to employ a whole combination of technological and social countermeasures to make sure that the handful of trolls do not, as they say, ruin it for the rest of us. Frankly, it gives me the fear.

It’s not the first time this has come up. Simon Waldman explained last month that an experiment like this is all about weighing the legal risks against the potential editorial and commercial rewards. Waldman’s major concern, moreover, is contempt of court, not libel.

Ashley Cole uses Internet to find libel witnesses

Posted by Martin Stabe on 9 March 2006 at 11:58
Tags: Journalism, Libel, News of the World, Photography, Privacy, Sport, Sun, copyright

Lawyers for footballer Ashley Cole are turning to the Internet to find potential witnesses for his libel case against News of the World or Sun.

In February, the NoW claimed two footballers and a “pal in the music industry” had been involved in a “homosexual orgy” involving a mobile phone. The paper later ran a heavily-pixelated image of two men along with further insinuations.

Pink News, the web site which appears to have prompted the case by publishing the original and unobsured image showing Cole and Ian Thompson, also known as DJ Masterstepz, carries an advert linking to the online survey, which is being run by law firm Teacher Stern Selby.

As we reported earlier this week, Thompson will also be suing the tabloids. In a new twist to the case we report in Press Gazette today, the Thompson is also considering an action for breach of copyright because the picture belonged to him.

Straight from the horse’s mouth

Posted by Zoe Smith on 3 March 2006 at 13:19
Tags: Journalism, Libel, Privacy, Sport, Sun

So now we have a chance to find out what’s really going on with Ashley Cole.

In an amusing twist of fate, The Sun today revealed that future Mrs. Ashley Cole, pop star Cheryl Tweedie, will feature in an exclusive Sun webchat next week.

Tweedie and her fellow Girls Aloud band mates will take part in an online Q&A session courtesy of the The Sun.

The paper cheekily states:

So if there’s something you’d like to ask Sarah, Nadine, Cheryl, Kimberly or Nicole just go to www.thesun.co.uk/bizarre and give us your questions.

In a statement issued today Cole’s lawyers said: “There is no truth whatever in these allegations. Ashley Cole will not tolerate this kind of cowardly journalism or let it go unchallenged.”

“It is disgraceful that he should be faced with this kind of unpleasant insinuation and innuendo at a time when he is trying to focus on this summer’s World Cup and his forthcoming wedding.

Ashley Cole roundup

Posted by Martin Stabe on 3 March 2006 at 11:25
Tags: Ethics, Journalism, Libel, News of the World, Online, Privacy, Sport, Star, Sun

Our exclusive report yesterday that Arsenal and England footballer Ashley Cole is suing the News of the World and the Sun (for harassment, libel and “false privacy” over stories about gay footballers in which he was not even named) has been widely picked up by other papers.

The Star tastefully splashes with the story (but strangely not on its web site). It’s also in the Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and Daily Telegraph.
The Times and Independent analyse the potential consequences for media law and what the Guardian calls the “implications for the tabloid press and their Faustian pact with the celebrity world”:

Legal experts view the case as an important step in taking the temperature of libel and privacy law in cases where the aggrieved parties are not named but the public is able to build up a “jigsaw” identification via tabloid hints that spark gossip via email, blogs and chatrooms.

They said the privacy part of the claim was “unique” because it relied on an untested concept known as “false privacy” - even though Cole says he is not gay, he will argue his privacy has been invaded.

Best of all is the Sun’s own front page report. In the intro, we learn that:

SOCCER star Ashley Cole has instructed lawyers to sue two newspapers — claiming he has been wrongly linked to gay sex allegations.

Fast forward to paragraph six:

He instructed lawyers to sue the News of the World — who originally reported that two Premiership stars had been caught romping on camera with a music industry pal.

Oh! That newspaper. Onward to paragraph 10, the last of the story:

Cole’s lawyers have filed writs against the News of the World and The Sun. He is suing for libel, harassment and breach of privacy.

Nice of them to mention that little detail.

2 comments

Footballer Ashley Cole sues tabloids

Posted by Martin Stabe on 2 March 2006 at 19:00
Tags: Evening Standard, Journalism, Libel, News of the World, Privacy, Sport, Sun

“Ashley Cole sues over gay orgy claim”, as reported in Press Gazette.

Update: The Times reports that the DJ shown in the pictures with Cole will also be suing.

Defamation - what are the risks for news sites’ blogs?

Posted by Julie Tomlin on 13 February 2006 at 13:12
Tags: Blogs, Libel, Scotland, Scotsman

Steven Vass, the Sunday Herald’s media correspondent says media lawyers will be swallowing hard at The Guardian’s plans to massively increase reader interaction on its website this year. Having already been the only newspaper to allow readers to post messages straight on its site, it is about to take the risks to a whole new level, he argues.

In Scotland, the Herald, Scotsman and the Daily Express have all decided not to let readers add comments. Only the Press and Journal in Aberdeen and the Daily Record are allowing any reader contributions on their web sites.

But the Guardian’s Simon Waldman responds in his blog that these risks are nothing new as the newspaper has run open talkboards and other comment systems for almost ten years. As well as defamation, the challenge is also about cntempt, he argues.

Comment is free, but won’t be anonymous

Posted by Martin Stabe on 13 February 2006 at 10:12
Tags: Blogs, Contempt of Court, Guardian, Libel, Newspapers

The Guardian will soon be launching Comment is Free — a new commentry blog modelled on the Huffington Post.

In his column on Saturday, assistant editor Neil Macintosh revealed that in an effort to avoid the kind of uncivil behaviour that recently forced the Washington Post to shut its blogs’s comments sections, the Guardian site will require readers to register with a valid e-mail address before being allowed to comment.

But that’s not the only feature they may be implementing to promote accountability:

We are also thinking of revealing on the site every commenter’s rough geographical location; information not exposed to the public before. Experiments on other sites suggest debates are more civil when everyone knows where everyone else is.

Interesting. One site that already uses geolocation in this way is Topix.net. In an interview for PBS MediaShift, Topix.net chief executive Rich Skrenta told Mark Glaser:

The geolocation technology we use is 99% accurate on a country level, 80% accurate on a state level, and 75% accurate for U.S. cities. Often for a wrong city it still gets the right “neck of the woods� for a poster. It says I’m in San Francisco when I’m actually in Palo Alto. It is finding the location of the poster’s ISP, not the poster themselves, which can be surprising.

Assuming the Guardian is playing with similar geolocation tools — which are being used increasingly by advertisers and are availble on simple web statistics tools like Google Analytics and even Sitemeter — I suspect Comment is Free will find a huge contingent of commenters from Lambeth, were, judging from the geolocation feature in my own logs, many London ISPs seem to be based. A commenter on my personal blog, where this is cross-posted, explained why:

The Lambeth effect is no doubt due to the fact that LINX is located in Tookey Street, SE1.

LINX is the internet exchange used by many of the major Internet Service Providers.

Meanwhile, the Guardian’s director of digital publishing, Simon Waldman has written a blog post about the legal risks the Guardian is taking by letting commenters post directly to their web site. It’s worth a read, because the same issues arise for every publication that allows readers to comment unmoderated on their web sites.

2 comments