bobsmyuncle wrote:Regretfully no case to answer. Journalist licence to reporting heard rumours. Not malicious reporting.
Unless of course the rumour attribution (either in a specific accusation or towards a specific club) was unduly regular and continuous, this might then be consrtued as malicious.
Legally, no - provided, of course, he could demonstrate on balance of probabilities that he had indeed heard such widespread rumours. I doubt message-board tittle-tattle would cary much weight?
But morally - very much so. He must have known full well that such reporting could be damaging and potentially very harmful. Any responsible hack would have contacted the club, explained what had been heard, explained that he intended to report on it, and invited comment. And, if he then still felt it worthy of reporting, include the club's comments. And if he chose NOT to include those comments, face serious public censure or worse for biased or malicious reporting.
But of course he is not responsible, so we saw what happened.
His failure to include the club's side, and therefore to present any attempt at a balanced report, means he sailed pretty close to the edge IMO.
And if the argument is that he was not acting as a reporter but was presenting his opinions, then he's sailing even closer to that fine line for defamation IMO.
). But if gossip on the terraces was along those lines, would it be OK for me to publish that for wide distribution?
