I think journalists who consistently fabricate stories get exiled to the Press Gallery, where they can invent leadership contenders to their hearts content: Shane Jones / David Hay, etc.
Name suppression is an offence based on publication of a suppressed name.
Protection of sources applies to journalism in news media.
The concepts are not identical - publication is making content available to the public, and Slater was convicted of violating name suppression for publishing the identity of rape victims on his blog. ISTR his failed defence was that the blog was a private communication rather than a publication.
Journalism is a subset of publication.
I'm getting the impression from comments elsewhere that this litigation concerns a business dispute where Slater weighed in on the side of one of the parties and received benefits in the form of overseas entertainment for his "work".
If true, then that isn't journalism.
It would be reasonable for Slater to, as part of any claim for journalistic privilege, deny these facts. If they later turned out true, he'd be in deep shit, however - the case of Jonathan Aitken comes to mind.
I think this is the same in NZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant but a lawyer will no doubt clarify [and one did, cheers Scott]
I would think that also, if one is defending a libel action based on the defense of truthfulness, one would be unlikely to win unless the sources who provided the information were willing to testify.
This will probably become more relevant if the HDC Bill is enacted - introducing "libel-lite" where cases can be pursued without a filing fee.
media are likely to fare better in the hands of companies which actually want to make media
I can think of only two organisations in the semi commercial old media space* to which that applies - the Scott Trust and the BBC (and the latter comes under frequent, well-documented pressure to promote the interests of the UK government).
For all the others, their motivation is around making money, propagating a political line, or a synergistic combination of both. (As in Murdoch's UK media interests - corrupting politicians to enable his papers to behave as they wish and thence corrupt more politicians).
* Obviously you have Wikipedia and others outside that traditional space.
“the reality of self-publishing is that the same individual or blog might be news media one day and just an arsehole the next.”
Maybe make the test of journalism apply to the article in question, not to the writer or publication's body of work?
I thought the process for the Law Commission was that they produced a report, which was then adjusted to fit the party in power's ideology, turned into legislation, voted on by Parliament and then, if passed, became law.
How can their recommendations be used in deciding a court case without this process - surely that short-circuits parliament?
I thought this was a thread for discussing the activities of (alleged) fraudulent crims, not a place for fraudulent crims to promote their activities.
Easy mistake to make.
Actually they went from 4.9% of the vote at the general election to 6.9%. I wouldn't call that a collapse.
Kind of in memory, I found this and will watch it later.