Understand Libel: A Brief Guide to Every Reporter's Nightmare

A wonderful discussion today with a close friend got my wheels turning about this one. What exactly is libel? Why is it so dangerous? And why do we really care?

Libel (n.)- Publication of a false statement that deliberately or carelessly damages someone's reputation.

Of course, we all know how helpful dictionary definitions are. What does that really mean, anyway? According to Tim Harrower's Inside Reporting, there are several criteria that a statement must meet in order to be considered libelous:


~Statements must be false, based on facts that are wrong or unverifiable.
~Statements must be defamatory. It can be libelous, for example, to accuse someone of a crime, discredit a person professionally, accuse someone of immorality or imply that a person is infected with a loathsome disease.
~Statements must be published. Any form of communication counts, whether it's printed, broadcast, posted on the internet or just typed to a friend.
~Plaintiffs must be identifiable. The plaintiff must prove they're the ones who were named or pictured.
~The defendant must be at fault either through negligence (failure to exercise appropriate care) or malice (intentionally and deliberately acting in ill will or with desire to harm another).

To put it in a manner short and sweet: Libel is the publication of facts that are damaging and untrue.

So now that we know what libel is, let's take a look at what libel isn't. A fact may be damaging, but if it is true, it isn't libelous. For example, if I printed...

~"Tom Cruise is short."

... that cannot be considered libel because, even though Mr. Cruise might find it damaging (defamatory), it is a true statement, and true statement aren't libelous. This protects journalists and whistleblowers that expose the truth in scandalous situations. However, if I were to make a comment about Tom Cruise being a short, hairy monkey, that could potentially get me into big trouble, because it there is no verifiable truth behind that statement (and if there is, I would love to see it).

Libel also isn't an opinion; for example, public review isn't libel because it is written as an opinion (and if it isn't, your editors need to be fired). Look at this sentence...

~"Miley Cyrus is a terrible singer."

This can't be considered libel, because even though it is published, and could be considered defamatory, it isn't a statement of fact; it's an opinion. Opinion's aren't libelous, because public performers openly and willingly submit themselves to public criticism. "Fair comment and criticism" is a key part of journalistic review.

There is a difference is libel definitions for "public figures", such as the ones used in the examples above, and private citizens. The term "public figure" is a bit sticky, and has in fact been the cornerstone of several Supreme Court libel cases (most notably the 1973 Gertz v. Welch case in which a private attorney sued a magazine, and won, after it called him "Communist" for representing clients suing the police). In general, a public figure can be defined as someone who has acquired fame or notoriety (such as an athlete or performer), or has participated in a public controversy (a protester or social activist).

Private citizens are protected more broadly by libel laws. For a public figure, it must be proved that the defendant attempted to damage the plaintiff through malice; for private citizens, it must only be shown that the defendant damaged the plaintiff through negligence. Defining "malice" and "negligence" can be even more tricky, and these evolving definitions continue to hold journalists to strict moral, ethical and legal standards.

So why are libelous statements so important? For one, they can get in trouble- big trouble. Libel is a serious issue, one that can get you (and your publication) sued. A brief glimpse at court cases over the years shows that libel cases are costly and time-consuming, and generally could have been prevented if the reporter/editing staff had done a little homework and double-checked their material before they sent it to print. Angry celebrities have been known to sue supermarket tabloids for millions of dollars over printed material; Martha Stewart comes to mind, as do Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise.

Besides legal trouble, libel doesn't bode well for the image of a paper or its writers. What self-respecting journalist would deliberately publish material that damaged the reputation of someone else, when they know that the statements they are publishing are not true? The itch to cover that big breaking story must be tempered by a sense of self-restraint and common sense. Printing the big Page 1 story is great for your resume, but when it (and the following lawsuit) shows that you're more concerned with getting a byline than getting the facts straight, who is going to take you seriously?

So where do you go when you've got a great story but are afraid that you might be treading dangerous waters? Always remember to check you facts; apart from basic journalistic skills, this will cover your butt in a hot situation. You must be able to prove that what you have published is verifiable and true. Beyond that, it's up to the reporter to act with responsibility and integrity. That is, after all, why you became a journalist, isn't it?