Could Veronica Wadley sue for libel over Standard ads?

May 12, 2009

standard-sorry-1.jpg

Could Veronica Wadley sue for libel over the Standard’s ‘Sorry’ campaign? The former editor of the London Evening Standard has made her feelings about new campaign clear, and that she doesn’t like it is not wholly surprising, given that the new incumbents outline a series of alleged failings that could only have happened under her reign.

But could Ms Wadley consult m’learned friends, the likes of Messrs Carter-Ruck, for example, and sue for libel? It seems to us that she might have a case.

The new editor, Geordie Greig, has defended the ‘Sorry’ campaign but it didn’t pull any punches, lambasting everything that the Standard was under Wadley. It was she, you will recall, who edited the paper for the past seven years, during which it stands accused of having lost touch with Londoners and being, says Greig, “negative, doom-laden, narrow, predictable, unsurprising”.

These weren’t statements of opinion. They are expressed as unequivocal statements of fact, for anything else would have been pointless given the campaign’s terms of reference. Ms Wadley was not identified by name, but the man on the Clapham omnibus would have little difficulty in concluding that her editorship was being questioned, given the principle of jigsaw identification and the fact that the ads were on billboards that a lot of London buses would pass en route in the capital. Moreover, the natural and ordinary meaning of the ads taken as a whole, not to say their innuendo meaning, is to condemn Ms Wadley in the strongest manner as being, well, not a very good editor.

Ms Wadley seems eminently capable of taking care of herself, but the spectre of the Standard facing a libel action from its former editor over the ‘Sorry’ campaign is irresistible. The London Evening Standard really would be sorry then.

Pictured by renaissancechambar a: what Messrs Lebedev and Greig might soon be saying to Ms Wadley.

 

One Response to “Could Veronica Wadley sue for libel over Standard ads?”

Posted by:
Josh Spero on May 12, 2009 at 10:12 am

But would it lower her in the esteem of the right-thinking man? I think if anything it makes Greig look petty.

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

Good work by Rusbridger

February 10, 2012
scissors

The headline says it all: ‘Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger takes pay cut‘.

Dan Sabbagh’s piece says a bit more: said editor ‘emailed staff at the newspaper to say that his salary in the upcoming 2012-13 financial year will be £395,010, compared with £438,900 in the current financial year’.

Some voices say: ‘How worthy.’

Others opine: ‘Well, he would, wouldn’t he?’

But we say: good work by Mr Rusbridger. For the sake of the media’s survival, we hope that others in senior positions in the industry will follow suit.

Image of toolkit allegedly deployed by Alan Rusbridger courtesy of Flickr user LollyKnit.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.