Although the majority of celebrity press we see in our current media is from the US, how often is it closer to home? In 2016 one of the most prominent female actresses in today’s TV and Film scene, Rebel Wilson was defamed by the leading Australian Media outlet at the time. Bauer Media, founded in 2010 was sued by Ms Wilson for accusations made against her that were made public without the proper investigation or evidence. It was found that 8 separate articles were published within “Womens Day” and “Womens Weekly” where misinformation surrounding Wilson's age, real name and upbringing were falsely written to be true. Over the duration of this 3 year defamation case the appeal was awarded the damages under the Defamation Act 2005.
What is Defamation?
Defamation is a critical media law which should be held at the highest regard for all current and aspiring journalists. According to “Journalists Guide to Media Law”, Defamation is the wrong of injuring another’s reputation without good reason or justification. However there are many key concepts contributing to the overall ideology of defamation including imputation, tort, criminal liability and limitation period. These 5 key identifiers contributed heavily to the way in which Bauer Media was prosecuted.
Australian Defamation Laws
Within Australia there is a legislation in place which direct journalists, writers and researchers towards the guidelines in which they should follow to avoid the same prosecutions as many media companies face. The Australian Defamation Act 2005 aims to promote uniform defamation laws throughout Australia, ensure the media law itself does not restrict or restrain unreasonably the public interest and importance of information, to provide effective/fair solutions and methods of resolution to those whose reputations are publicly affected. There are 5 contributing parts within the Act including but not limited to:
Part 1: Preliminary
Part 2: Provisions consequent on enactment of this Act
Part 3: Provisions consequent on enactment of Defamation Amendment Act 2020
Part 4: Ligation of civil disputes
Part 5: Miscellaneous
Timeline of the Rebel VS Bauer Media Defamation Case
In 2015 Bauer Media released public statements within “Women’s Weekly” and “Women’s Day” claiming Ms Wilson was a “serial liar”. Accusations made without the proper consultation or supporting evidence result in defamation laws being repudiated. Taking the case to the Victorian Supreme Court where Justice John Dixon eventually awarded Wilson with $4,567,472 in total damages in 2017. There were said to be 3 contributing factors to Dixon’s judgement which can be found within “BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD V WILSON [NO.2] [2018] VSCA 154” and they are as follows:
“(1) the judge had committed a number of errors in assessing damages for non-economic loss in some of the findings he made about aggravating circumstances;”
“(2) under s 35 of the Defamation Act, a cap is imposed on damages for non-economic loss. The judge misconstrued the relevant legislation when deciding how the cap operated;”
“(3) the judge had erred in awarding the plaintiff $3,917,472 for economic loss. No award at all should have been made; or else, an award in a much smaller amount.”
This total amount consisted of $650,000 in general aggravated damages and $3,917,472 in “special damages” for potential media roles lost as a result of the case. In doing so Judge Dixon rejected all defences proposed by Bauer through the use of Justification, Triviality and Qualified Privilege, this notion was not challenged by the jury. However it was sustained by the Court of Appeal who maintain Bauer’s challenge as “aggravating circumstances”.
The case came to a close when Wilson unsuccessfully notioned her case to be moved to the High Court of Australia, this brought the case to a “definitive end”. In coherence with this notion Wilson was ordered to repay $4.1 million of the original $4.5million dollar payout, and furthermore 80% of Bauer’s legal costs. The ABC stated that “Bauer Media argued that the $4.5 million payout was excessive and should be set aside due to errors in fact and law”, this was also supported by a statement made by the court's finding that "there was no basis in the evidence for making any award of damages for economic loss".
A Comparison - Geoffrey Rush VS Nationwide News’ Daily Telegraph
Geoffery Rush is an established Australian actor and narrator seen across the media scene since 1971, throughout his career Rush has come across a range of media coverage and journalists' opinions; however in 2017 the Daily Telegraph took that a step further. Publishing 2 front page articles containing allegations of Rush acting sexually and innapproiatly towards female co-star Eryn Jean Norvill. Without proper investigation or communication with the proper witnesses or Rush himself, Daily Telegraph found themselves in the midst of the biggest Defamation case since Rebel VS Bauer. The Daily Telegraph published the articles in coherence with the “MeToo” movement surrounding Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey; if the proper investigation was conducted this form of comparison would soon be seen to be incorrect. On July 2nd 2020, Rush eventually awarded $2.9 million AUD after taking the case to Federal Court and the judgement rejected Daily Telegraphs appeal “on all grounds” leading to the highest sustained Defamation case payout seen in Australia.
This case demonstrates to the media the potential outcome the Rebel VS Bauer case could have overcome if an audit was not filed, the Geoffrey Rush VS Daily Telegraph case is now the highest standing defamation case payout.
What Journalists can learn
When looking directly into both these cases it is evident that not only must aspiring and leading journalists monitor all resources obtained when conducting an editorial investigation but consider all aspects of a media law case. Defamation is the most common media law broken, explaining why more attention must be paid to educating those around us, identifying the key concepts of Defamation and holding our courts and judges accountable so the right outcome is processed. Both cases identified today highlight the importance of proper investigation and fact checking media companies and journalists must undergo before publishing a piece which could potentially injure someone's reputation greatly.
댓글