The rule is: whoever reports it is liable for it. Even if it’s from an apparently reputable and knowledgeable source, such as the police. The publisher has to prove the truth of the sting of the article, remember. That’s what the readers or viewers will take it to mean. It’s not enough for the publisher to prove that it has reported the accusation accurately. It must be able to prove that the accusation itself is true.

What if the publisher writes “alleged”?

This is just a fancy way of saying “I’m reporting what someone else has said” – so the same answer applies. Sprinkling a story with the word “alleged” or “rumoured” doesn’t insulate the publisher from a defamation lawsuit. The publisher is still passing on someone else’s allegation or gossip.

https://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273

[–] Dave 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Now I'm wondering how we can have a media at all!

This bit is interesting (about what defamation is):

where no defence (usually truth, opinion, or qualified privilege) is available

So even if it was said outside of parliamentary privilege, Winston could just say it's his opinion. But the media could get in trouble for reporting he said it because it's not their opinion!

I'm sure it's structured this way for a reason, after all, rules are written in blood, but to an outsider it seems like it would prevent a lot of political news being published!

Now how come they can print that Julie Anne Genter yelled at a florist? They only have the florist's word. Its that enough to prove truth? We only have Winston's word about the other guy.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago

So even if it was said outside of parliamentary privilege, Winston could just say it's his opinion

Not sure it works that way, you have to assert it's your opion when you say it.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I can see the intent of it and I think it does have merit, but access to the courts is expensive and therefore inequitable so it is open to 'lawfare' or abuse by powerful people, so you can have a chilling effect on media.

They'll print about JAG because they don't see a risk of being taken for defamation I suppose? Perhaps if she threatened it it might be a different story. But again I guess they'll weigh up their defence as part of it. This is a lot of what lawyers employed by media agencies do I guess.

[–] Dave 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah it's interesting stuff. On one hand the media needs to have a high level of scrutiny so we can trust it. On the other hand we are getting a biased view because some are blocking articles while others aren't.