Hickson V. Channel 4
It is clear that this case falls within the boundaries of the defamation act. However, there are many reasonable and debatable questions within these boundaries. It is also clear that channel 4 is suitable and fits all the guidelines for the Actual Malice rule. Although channel 4 has made claims that the faulty claims made in their publication of the death of Mrs Hickson’s daughter on December 4, 2002 was simply an honest mistake and regurgitation of the information relayed by the AP. I find this statement bearing no truth due to the fact channel 4’s story doesn’t abide to the facts presented in AP story, therefore inflicting various negative implications on Mrs. Hickson’s reputation, economical stability and mental health.
Channel 4 is clearly a public resource/figure that is very much suitable for the Actual Malice rule. Generally one cannot be guilty of actual malice due to the failure to investigate the truth of the allegations. For this very reason the AP story has done nothing wrong besides commit a honest journalistic mistake, which is not grounds for persecution. Although channel 4’s story bears resemblance to the story printed by the AP there is obvious fabrications within their story, which is clearly reckless regard for the truth.
Regarding defamation on Mrs. Hickson’s behalf, it is also clear that channel 4’s article has inflicted permanent damage on her character and public respect. There are clear false statements of fact fabricated by channel 4 not to mentions it is evident that Mrs. Hickson was at home during the death of her daughter and it is not fair for her to catch the grief of being an irresponsible single parent (harm to Hickson’s reputation). These statements are obviously of and concerning Mrs. Hickson. Mrs. Hickson accusations of channel 4 making and example of her may not be true however they are reasonable and futher the damage done by the alleged fabrications sated by channel 4. Mrs. Hickson has also suffered some serious mental health issues that have cost outstanding amounts of money and have been partially fueled by the misrepresentations of her daughter’s death by channel 4’s publications of the event (clear evidence of damage). Mrs. Hickson’s has lost the respect of the community and this has made it difficult for her to find a reputable job or simply be socially accepted. Most importantly, channels 4’s Reckless disregard for the truth has thus cost her 16 months of unemployment and the loss of future income.
Renee Heikamp, 19, and case worker from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS), Angie Martin, were charged with criminal negligence resulting in the 1997 death of newborn baby, Jordan Heikamp. The charges were dropped shortly after Jordan’s death, due to a lack of evidence from the investigation of a 63-day inquest. (CBC, 2001). Renee Heikamp and her baby were residing at the Anduhyaun shelter that services Aboriginal women fleeing abuse during the time of his death. Jordan Heikamp had starved to death, weighing only 4 pounds, 4 ounces less than what he weighed at his pre-mature birth, in May 1997; a photograph shown to witnesses at the inquest revealed the corpse of the baby who was little more than a skeleton.
Jeffry Masson filed a suit for defamation against New Yorker Magazine, claiming that publishing the so called fabrications had hurt his reputation. Defamation is defined as “a false communication that harms another’s reputation and subjects him to ridicule and scorn” (Trager, 2010, p. 52). The quotations that Masson was the most upset about were being called an “intellectual gigolo” as well as being called “the greatest analyst who ever lived” (Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 1991). In court Masson was declared a public figure and had to ...
Leslie Silko certainly makes accusations that some could argue far exceed the boundaries of journalism integrity, and fail to deliver with evidence to back them up.
The media has taken the Hannah Graham case by storm - it has gotten local, national, and even international coverage. For the past month, I have seen a new article about the case almost everyday. I watched it slowly go from local newspapers in Charlottesville that had been posted by friends who go to UVA who were hoping people would know of her whereabouts, to articles in CNN talking about how Jesse Matthew (the suspect) is a serial rapist and murderer. The case presents itself as a very intriguing case - completely Law and Order SVU worthy with all the twists and turns. However, with all of this public interest in the case, some news outlets are sensationalizing information or even reporting false facts in order to seem as if they have the
...l car chase. What was their goal? Simply to get one photograph of her and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed. Causing any sort of physical harm in order to report a simple story than one will often call “smut” is ridiculous. Being called a muckraker is all but honorable in 99% of cases.
For instance, in the book to Kill a Mockingbird, or “TKAM” for short, when Miss Stephanie Crawford says “ Boo was sitting in the living room cutting some items from the Maycomb Tribune… Boo drove scissors into his parents’ legs.. and resumed his activities”(lee 11). Miss Stephanie Crawford had told two children this by the names of Jem and Scout Finch, the main characters in the story. Miss Stephanie Crawford was not at the event that she so claimed was true, therefore she had no idea of who this child really was like, or if he had even done these acts as she so gratefully told.These rumors are never known to be the truth or not, however people still spread them everywhere with no regard for the victims own life.
Nigel Covington, editor of The National Report gives a brief summary at the end of his article stating that James Holmes, who murdered twelve people in a movie theater, will only be charged with illegally parking his car in a handicapped parking spot when he murdered the victims. After already dropping the charges because Holmes is white, it turns out he is not above the law and will have to pay an eighty dollar fine for parking in handicap parking (Covington). Covington makes a mockery about the fact that the only punishment a man who killed twelve people will get a measly fine for parking in the wrong
Watching the regular news as I frequently do, I always hear the way a reporter speaks about a topic and immediately I know the view that that particular reporter takes. This happens in many instances, but one time in particular caught my attention. A reporter was doing a story on vandalism. Usually you hear about vandalism on abortion clinics and harassment of that sort, and usually the reporter uses the words “Anti-abortionists” to describe the people who commit these crimes. One the other hand this time was different. The reporter was doing a story on vandalism that happened on a church billboard, outside the church, and the billboard said something having to do with pro-life and the choice that they believed in. Later that night there was a huge black question mark that was spray painted on that saying. The reporter desc...
London Borough of Brent (1985) A Child in Trust: the report of the panel of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Jasmine Beckford, London, Brent.
In 1993, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, aged ten at the time, abused and murdered a two-year-old boy, James Bulger. There was media uproar about the case with the two boys being described as ‘evil’, ‘monsters’ and ‘freaks’ in the media (Franklin & Horwath 1998). There were many references to evil in the newspapers; with the telegraph stating that Thompson’s nickname was ‘Damien’ (from The Omen) and declaring that Venables birth date was Friday the 13th. The majority of society was united in the belief that these two boys were the epitome of evil and it was the media that nurtured this belief. ‘Newspaper reports were unequivocal in their denunciations of Thompson and Venables as inherently evil, prompted perhaps initially by Justice Morland’s description of the murder as an act of unparalleled ev...
The Web. 28 Feb 2014 Christopher, Liam. “Mother ‘vindicated’ after girl’s murder suspect held.” Daily Post. 18 Aug. 2006: 19:. Proquest Newsstand.
Internet a bad name. There is also information on the Net that could be harmful
The difficulty I had with this case, was I had multiple sources to turn to for information. I had to choose which source was reliable because I did not want misconduct information. The media sources had about the same variety of information about Gabriel’s case, but added small details that the alternative networks did not include. For example, each news network added more information on how Gabriel was found by the paramedics. The L. A. Times reported that Gabriel had a cracked skull and three broken ribs while the Huffington Post did not include this information. The L.A. times also elaborated more on the story by reporting more facts about who was involved in the investigating. They included names of teachers, and police officials that was involved. The differences between how news network presented the facts in the case proved the different ways we are influenced by the media, and the information we gather depends on where we get our stories
Courts do not always protect the press, if something is published that has no real interest and invades someone’s privacy can be fined for doing so. There are also several tv shows that paramedics or firemen enter a home for a call and a tv crew will follow them, and the people inside have no time or may not be in the condition to give permission to enter and in result there have been many reported cases in which the victim later sued for invasion of privacy.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) changed the nature of libel suits by establishing that public figures must prove “‘actual malice’” to recover on a liability claim (Ibid 368) (Epstein and Walker 509). Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) applied this standard to all public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), Justice Powell held that private individuals were afforded more protection, noting that private citizens have less access to media channels and thus less ability to rebut defamatory articles published about them (Duhart 374). However, public figures, he contends, are much like public officials in that they “‘must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs’” (Ibid). Furthermore, decisions that cite Sidis, such as Friedan v. Friedan (1976), continue to ignore the passing of time as a means of abating one’s status as a public figure (Ibid). Friedan had been out of the public eye for “only” sixteen years; Sidis had sought seclusion for nearly thirty. “Thirty years ' retirement from public life should end the general public 's interest in the plaintiff14” yet evidently it does not always do so (Digital Repository at Maurer Law 420). Unfortunately, it is still true that “the passage of time usually has little or no effect on public figure status.” (Duhart