Not So Tweet

It really won’t be.
Not when you’re looking at the prospect of having to shell out potentially huge amounts of money, for a careless comment (or the repetition of someone else’s careless comment) of 144 characters, or less.
But that’s precisely the scenario facing those individuals who Tweeted or re-Tweeted remarks last week concerning the totally false allegations of child sex-abuse that were leveled against senior British Conservative (Tory) Party figure, Lord McAlpine.
They will now have to wait, to see what action (if any) is taken against them, by Lord McAlpine and his legal team – especially in light of the new relationship that is taking shape, between Twitter and the law.
The roots of this go back to a UK legal verdict of March, this year.
The Chris Cairns Libel Case
On Monday 26 March 2012, a British judge awarded £90,000 Sterling ($140,000) in libel damages to New Zealand cricket player Chris Cairns – who claimed that he had been defamed in a 24-word Twitter message by Lalit Modi, the ex-chairman of the Indian Premier League or IPL.
In a Tweet in January 2010, Modi said that Cairns had been barred from the IPL due to “his past record in match-fixing”. The comments were picked up by the popular cricket website CricInfo.
After Cairns complained, CricInfo withdrew the article, apologized, and paid damages, but Modi refused, maintaining that his allegations were true.
Having seen the Tweet, a journalist from CricInfo responded with a request for confirmation.
Modi was unable to provide any evidence to back up his comments.
Adjudicating in the case, Justice David Bean noted the serious nature of the libel:
“It is obvious that an allegation that a professional cricketer is a match-fixer goes to the core attributes of his personality and, if true, entirely destroys his reputation for integrity. It is as serious an allegation as anyone could make against a professional sportsman.”
It is worth noting that Modi did not have many followers on Twitter – meaning that the Tweet was seen only by an estimated 65 people. The piece on CricInfo was only online for a few hours, during which time it was seen by anywhere between 450 and 1500 individuals.
Nonetheless, Justice Bean noted that:
“…although publication was limited, that does not mean that damages should be reduced to trivial amounts.”
He then quoted another decision made in a 1935 case, where it was said:
“It is precisely because the ‘real’ damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. It is impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach…”
Besides the $140,000 (or 90,000 pounds) awarded in damages, Modi was also ordered to pay $635,000 in legal costs. Reportedly, the judge says that the defendant can appeal the amount of damages, but not the question of liability.
Clearly, this verdict highlights the dangers of harmful speech on a social media platform that is enjoyed throughout the world.
In the meantime, the UK suddenly becomes a place to watch for future Twitter defamation cases.
Like The McAlpine Case?
Quite possibly.
Lord McAlpine’s solicitor Andrew Reid has pledged to sue everyone who Tweeted his client’s name in relation to mistaken sexual abuse allegations.
The lawyer had been instructed by former Tory treasurer Lord McAlpine to negotiate a compensation settlement from the BBC for the Newsnight programme that linked him to historic child sex abuse in a North Wales care home.
This he did, and quite emphatically, too.
The BBC announced on the evening of 15 November that it had settled libel claims brought against it by Lord McAlpine over the Newsnight broadcast.
The damages, agreed 13 days after the broadcast, total £185,000 plus costs.
Reid has now turned his attention to those who named his client, in cyberspace.
He told the BBC’s World at One program that he had a list of people who had identified his client in the mainstream media and online, who he would be contacting and taking legal action against. He added that some prominent people had already apologized.
Reid said: “We know who you are and what you have done. It’s easier to come forward and see us and apologize and arrange to settle with us because, in the long run, this is the cheapest and best way to bring this matter to an end.”
Reid claimed that the public is fed up of “trial by Twitter” and said: “Very sadly we’re going to have to take action against a lot of people. It’s a very long list and there are other broadcasters and we will be getting to them.”
This appears to suggest not only that defamation on social media will be taken as seriously as that in the mainstream media, but also that the potential for damage to people’s reputations to spread (much greater in the digital media) will be a consideration.
For many of those using Twitter – a format which lends itself to hasty, unconsidered, and frequently vitriolic comments – it has implications about what they say, and how they say it.
A sobering thought.
And one I’ll leave you with.
BTW, you can follow my Tweets (or not), @desnnr, on Twitter.
Where I’m occasionally amusing, but never, ever defamatory. I swear.
Peace.

BBCollateral Damage

Had to be, really.

After practically admitting – in an interview on his own network – that he didn’t keep up to date with current affairs (for whatever reason), George Entwistle, the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has stepped down.

The BBC’s top executive fell on his sword, in the early hours of this morning.

Entwistle had held the position for only 54 days.

Three elements contributed to the early demise of Mr. Entwistle’s career.

1. The Jimmy Savile Affair

I covered this, in my post “Savile Row”, but to summarize:

BBC television and radio presenter Jimmy Savile (who died last year) was revealed postmortem as a super-serial paedophile who exploited his position as host of a popular children’s TV program and head of several charities to gain access to his victims, over a period covering the 1960s, ’70s, ’80s, and quite possibly the ’90s, as well.

Up to 300 separate allegations (Yes; you read that correctly) are currently being investigated.

Together with suspicions that the BBC may have been at best negligent, and at worst complicit, in failing to discover or report on Savile’s activities, throughout that time.

Last year, in fact, George Entwistle (then head of the BBC’s television arm) presided over the cancellation of a documentary program (Newsnight) exposing aspects of the Savile affair.

That was Strike One.

Strike Two?

2. The Second Newsnight Debacle

Newsnight is pretty much the BBC’s flagship of investigative journalism.

Incisive. Hard-hitting. Willing to take on difficult subjects.

And all that.

So, the show’s producers and journalists must have been smarting from the heat of the intense public anger over the withdrawal of last year’s Savile exposé.

And, presumably, looking for an avenue to regain their edge – and the public trust.

On Nov. 2nd, Newsnight aired the results of its investigation into alleged cases of child abuse at various care facilities in north Wales.

The show reported the testimony of abuse victim Steve Messham’s claims against a leading Conservative Party politician of the 1980s – but Messham withdrew his accusation a week later, saying he had been mistaken about the identity of the man in the photograph which he was shown.
Lord McAlpine, although not named on Newsnight, was identified on the Internet as the subject of the allegations.
Mr Messham apologised to Lord McAlpine saying he was not the man who assaulted him, while Lord McAlpine said the claims were “wholly false and seriously defamatory”.
The BBC has since ordered an “immediate pause” in Newsnight investigations to assess editorial robustness and a suspension of all co-productions with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which worked on the Newsnight broadcast.
Mr Entwistle commissioned a report from BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie into what happened with the Newsnight investigation.
A last, desperate swing.
Not enough, though.

And Strike Three:

3. The Crisis of Trust

By now, Entwistle was looking more like a liability, than a viable Chief Executive.

Mr Entwistle was criticized for his performance during an interview on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today program on Saturday, in which he admitted he had not read a newspaper article revealing the case of mistaken identity involving Lord McAlpine, and that he had not seen the Newsnight broadcast when it aired on 2 November as he “was out”.

Worse: His perceived lack of activity, oversight, or organizational skills was having a knock-on effect, on public confidence in the BBC, as a whole.

A poll conducted in the UK on Friday confirmed that – for the first time in, like, ever – fewer than 50% of the general public actually trusted the BBC to provide truthful and reliable reporting.

Not good.

For a network that virtually embodies the highest standards of journalism?

Not good, at all.

Damage Done.

So, George Entwistle had to go.

BBC Chairman Lord Patten now faces the twin tasks of finding a replacement for Entwistle, and restoring the people’s faith in the Beeb (as the BBC is known, colloquially).

Not easy.

But – as one of those who still hold the Corporation in a high regard – I hope he does it. And soon.

In the meantime, I’ll let you get back to your day.

Peace.

Savile Row

Not the tailoring outfit.
A man.
A media personality who graced (if that’s an appropriate word – which it isn’t) the screens of UK television on the BBC throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, as disc jockey, and eventual host of his own charity-based TV series.
Jimmy Savile.
Now, I’ve got to admit, straight out.
Growing up in the UK during that era, I never liked Jimmy Savile.
Something about him always struck me as, well. Off.
Seems my instincts were right.
Sir James Savile, KBE, to give him his full title (The Queen knighted this man, in 19-whenever-it-was, if you can believe it. Not the first time a knighthood has gone to a less than savory character. And not the last, I dare say. Sorry. I digress.) stands accused of abusing his position – and many, many of the underage girls who came into his orbit, in alleged acts of rape, and sexual assault.
Over 200 separate allegations, so far.
Spanning a period of four decades.
The word ‘serial’ doesn’t quite cover it.
Posthumous allegations, these, since Savile died last year, at the age of 84 (I’m sure there are many out there who will hope that he doesn’t RIP).
To make matters worse, senior officials at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) may have been aware of Savile’s behavior and – by alleged acts of omission or commission – stand accused of permitting it to continue.
Hence, the controversy. Or row, as the British might say.
Hear; Know EvilYesterday, BBC Director-General George Entwistle faced MPs at a House of Commons Select Committee hearing.
Mr Entwistle admitted that a ‘broad cultural problem’ within the BBC during the 60s and 70s had allowed Savile to get away with decades of abusing children.
He however noted that there was insufficient evidence to say whether abuse was endemic within the Corporation.
This notwithstanding, Entwistle revealed that the BBC was investigating up to 10 ‘serious allegations’ involving employees ‘over the whole period in question’. And assisting the police inquiries as to whether a paedophile ring operated at the Corporation.
The Newsnight DebacleMr Entwistle faced a barrage of criticism from MPs for his ‘extraordinary lack of curiosity’ over a documentary program Newsnight’s discovery last year that Savile was a suspected paedophile.
The show was canned, and TV tributes to the late DJ were broadcast instead.
George Entwistle was head of BBC Vision (the television arm of the network) at the time of the Newsnight probe’s mysterious cancellation.
He told the committee that Newsnight’s controversial probe into Savile’s alleged behavior should never have been ditched by TV bosses last year.
Mr Entwistle said there had been a ‘breakdown of communication’ between Newsnight reporters and the editor, Peter Rippon, and he did not feel ‘confident’ he could get an explanation over what happened from within the BBC.
Mr Entwistle told the committee that he had not personally spoken to any of those involved in preparing the Newsnight film.
He said he felt it was better to operate through the BBC ‘chain of command’, so that he could remain an impartial judge of any subsequent disciplinary case. He therefore left it to head of news Helen Boaden and deputy director of news Stephen Mitchell to deal directly with the program.
Mr Entwistle said Ms Boaden had spoken to the Newsnight team only briefly during the investigation.
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon stood down, as the furore over the ditched Savile investigation continued to gather pace yesterday.
Buck Passing?Sounds like it, doesn’t it?
The chairman of the BBC Trust (the network’s governing body) Lord Patton today promised a full and comprehensive inquiry, into the scandal.
Former Court of Appeal judge, Dame Janet Smith has been appointed to head one of the independent inquiries commissioned by the corporation as a result of the late presenter’s protracted sexual abuse.
She will look into the ‘culture and practices’ of the BBC during the years Savile was working for the corporation – a time in which he is thought to have abused dozens of people.
Dame Janet Smith said she will begin work on her inquiry into Jimmy Savile’s activities at the BBC as early as next week.
Cover-up, or no?Remains to be seen.
Let’s hope that, as the inquiry proceeds, the focus on the failings (or otherwise) of the BBC doesn’t eclipse the people who really matter, in this affair.
The victims of Savile’s (alleged) offences.
And their families.
Let’s spare a thought, for them.
Peace.