Libel protection inaccessible to average person

Byron Buckley, Associate Editor - Special Projects

IS PRIME Minister Bruce Golding's recent call for greater accountability by the media justifiable? After all, the media, as the watchdog of democracy, hold everybody's feet to the fire of accountability and transparency. To whom are the media accountable? Who protects the average person from powerful media interests?

There are several layers of media accountability. From a business perspective, media entities are first accountable to their owners/ shareholders and stakeholders such as advertisers and customers (readers, viewers, listeners).

Like any other commercial enterprise, bottom-line considerations influence strategic decision making by media organisations.

A second layer of accountability, particularly relating to the electronic media, involves programming and content regulations prescribed by the state regulator, the Broadcasting Commission, for holders of broadcast licences. These regulations tend to address issues of public decency and values, especially in relation to the impact on minors. But the Broadcasting Commission does not address issues of libel or complaints from the public about the accuracy of reports carried by the media.

Third layer of accountability

These types of issues are generally dealt with by media houses themselves - the third layer of accountability. Media houses routinely apologise to persons offended by reports. Media also publish corrections/clarification or give the offended person the right of reply, variously through a letter, article, interview, or published remarks. Importantly, some media houses publish their codes of practice, thus facilitating the third layer of accountability to the consuming public.

In addition to the codes of practice by individual media entities, the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) - the professional group for working journalists - ratified a revised code of practice at its annual general meeting last August. The code is posted under 'Documents' on the PAJ's website - http://pressassociationjamaica.org. Members of the Media Association Jamaica (MAJ) Limited - the group representing media owners - now need to integrate the industrywide professional standards into their internal personnel policy and to apply appropriate sanctions.

The self-regulatory approach by individual media entities does not always satisfy the aggrieved person. Sometimes media organisations are unresponsive or reluctant to admit error on their part, causing the complainant to go the costly legal route. Conversely, the complainant is being unreasonable and asking for outrageous remedies. When negotiations break down, the parties end up with a libel/defamation case in court.

Fourth layer of accountability

It has been mooted that there should be a fourth layer of accountability before resorting to the courts - a press complaints council. As the PM noted recently in the House while debating a libel reform report, the idea of establishing a press council has been floating around for decades. The PAJ and MAJ discussed the issue last year and a number of proposals are currently on the table.

A major weakness of the proposed press complaints council, if it is to be effective in promoting accountability, is its lack of mandatory authority - media entities who disagree with a ruling can take up their marbles and walk away. Influential elements of the local media ownership are strongly against the idea of an industrywide, self-regulatory body. The preference is for robust and transparent systems of accountability in each media house. Where this fails to offer adequate redress, the next step is to the courts - the final layer of accountability for the media.

Of course, the average person aggrieved by the media does not have the financial resources to engage legal representation and, therefore, will not enjoy the protection offered by the defamation laws in either an antiquated or reformed state.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.