Murat’s Libel Claim: A Slight Case of Meaning

April 14, 2008

The Observer reported yesterday on Robert Murat’s claim for libel against various British newspapers.

murat1460x276.jpgMurat, of course, was made an ‘arguido’, or formal suspect, by Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. His elevation to arguido status came as a result of a tabloid reporter’s observations about his conduct. Lori Campbell, of The Sunday Mirror, opined that there was “an evasiveness and unease” about Murat that not only left her feeling “extremely uncomfortable”, but also reminded her of the conduct of Ian Huntley during the Soham murder investigation.

There are those among us (and Blade can name names) who feel that tabloid reporters do enough damage without reporting their suspicions to the police, but Murat might find himself considerably enriched by the conduct of the Fourth Estate. As one of Blade’s former colleagues, Caroline Kean, told The Observer: “[He] could expect at least £200,000 per paper, per claim, and that would clear £2m.”

The estimable Ms Kean’s comment was prefaced by the following sentence: “Media lawyer and litigation expert Caroline Kean of media law specialists Wiggin said that if Murat successfully argued that the articles inferred that he was involved in the abduction or murder of Madeleine then his claims could result in a record payout.”

Which is all well and good, save for one thing. Why the misuse of the humble verb, ‘to infer’? It is not the articles that will infer, but their readers. Said readers peruse, ponder and, sometimes, infer meanings from articles. The articles, in this context, would correctly be said to have implied things about Murat.

Blade is all for the resolution of this tragic case, both so far as Mr and Mrs McCann and Mr Murat are concerned. But when writing about libel, it strikes me that words should be used, well, correctly.

 

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.