Main site navigation

Defamation Law in Context: Australian and US News Production Practices and Public Debate (2003 - 2006)

From
2003
To
2006
Summary

Project Leaders: Associate Professor Andrew Kenyon; and Dr. Tim Marjoribanks - Sociology Program, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne.

A/Prof. Andrew Kenyon (GAMS ID P53729)
Dr. Tim Marjoribanks (GAMS ID AB0698)

Also involved: Other Investigators - Dr. C. Dent (role included interviewing and coding work)

Legal and media commentators claim Australian defamation law 'chills' media speech and limits public debate, especially compared to the US. This project examines how defamation risks are considered in media production practices under differing legal, institutional and social contexts in Australia and the US. It responds to important defamation law developments and media transformations. The project will:
- Produce qualitative data about media news production practices and products in Australia and the US
- Use the data to evaluate the role of defamation law in the media's contribution to public debate, and argue for optimal reforms to Australian defamation law.

Chief Investigators: Andrew Kenyon, Tim Marjoribanks (Sociology Program, University of Melbourne)

Research Fellow: Jason Bosland

Project Description from Part B (B1) - ARC Final Report - Discovery-Project - (DP):
Legal and media commentators claim Australian defamation law 'chills' media speech and limits public debate, especially compared to the US. This project examines how defamation risks are considered in media production practices under differing legal, institutional and social contexts in Australia and the US. It responds to important defamation law developments and media transformations. The project will: - Produce qualitative data about media news production practices and products in Australia and the US. - Use the data to evaluate the role of defamation law in the media's contribution to public debate, and argue for optimal reforms to Australian defamation law.

Project Objectives from Part B (B2) - ARC Final Report - Discovery-Project - (DP):
The project will: provide Australian research into an issue of major concern for media law - the promotion of public interest speech; extend the methodology and value of existing international legal literature about defamation through comparative empirical research; broaden a trend towards qualitative legal research, by exploring the understandings of law held by non-legal and legal actors; and analyse the significance of these understanidngs for the law's operation and reform.

Details

Project Outcomes and Impacts from Part D (D2) - ARC Final Report - Discovery-Project - (DP):
The project identified and analysed relevant legal and media studies material in the US, Australia and England, involved more than 170 interviews with media professionals and their legal advisers in the three countries and substantial content analysis of media products.

The research is significant for being the first comparative examination of defamation law and journalism by researchers with expertise in law and in media sociology. Through this, it has developed the methods previously used in media law and sociology research. The work confirms some of the significant difference, particularly as regards US defamation law, which have been assumed in much of the legal literature. For example, the Dent and Kenyon was based on an analysis of more than 1,400 Australin and US newspaper articles which suggested that in the US, where defamation plaintiffs face much heavier burdens than under the English and Australian law, defamatory allegations against political and corporate actors are published more frequently than in Australia. It is worth noting that the US titles did not include the so-called supermarket tabloids - rather they were titles comparable to Australian newspapers. From this sample of general news articles and commentary, the US material was found to contain defamatory allegations at nearly three times the rate of the Australian articles. The "chilling effect" suggested by such findings, which were supported by the interview material, have great significance for the recent enactment of uniform defamation law in all Australian states and territories (and for the review of the uniform law that is planned to take place in several years by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General). The research also has implications for the development of a broader defence for public interest speech in Australian law, because of the way it details practices in England (where a broader defence has developed in a very similar legal tradition). In addition, the Kenyon and Marjoribanks articles and conference papers provide significant insights into the ways in which editors, producers, journalists, reporters and legal advisors negotiate defamation law in everyday news production.

Part D cont. (D3):
The project led to a current ARC Discovery Project (DP0662844) in which both Cis are collaborating with researchers expert in Southeast Asian law (Lindsey and Whiting) to examine defamation law, journalism and public debate in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

Part D cont. (D4):
The project resulted in national benefits in terms of law reform. Submissions were made and meetings held with Victorian and South Australian legal officials in relation to the enactment of national uniform defamation law, which took effect from the start of 2006. The project has wider benefits in developing lawers and media professionals understanding of important comparative jurisdictions, particularly given the frequency of internet publication by media companies.

Files created/compiled by:
* Centre Administrator
1. David Lindsay (Academic) - 1st in administrative role - dates unknown
2. Emma Stacey - c.2003-2004
3. Amy Harrington - end 2004/2005 - May 2008
4. Bronwyn Wolff - July 2008-February 2009, July 2009- official start: August 2009
5. Charlotte Morgan - February 2009-May/June 2009

* Andrew Kenyon
- Director, CMCL
- Chief Investigator, Defamation and Law Project

Sources used to compile this entry: Andrew Kenyon, "ARC Final Report - Discovery-Project - (DP)", from Research Record Collection: Andrew Kenyon, Defamation Law in Context: Australian and US News Production Practices and Public Debate, Room 935, Centre for Media and Communications Law, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne.

Prepared by: Michael Jones

Related People

Archival/Heritage Resources

Room 935, Centre for Media and Communications Law, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne

  • Research Record Collection: Andrew Kenyon, Defamation Law in Context: Australian and US News Production Practices and Public Debate, 2003 - 2006; Private Hands [ Details... ].

Resources

Conference Papers

  • Tim K. Marjoribanks and Andrew T. Kenyon, 'Regulating News: Standards and Competence in Contemporary Media Practice', in Proceedings of the Australian Sociological Association 2004 Conference, La Trobe University, Australian Sociological Association, December 2004. [ Details... ]

Journal Articles

  • Andrew Kenyon, 'Lange and Reynolds Qualified Privilege: Australian and English Defamation Law and Practice', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 28, 2004, pp. 406-437. [ Details... ]
  • Chris Dent, ''The Privileged Few' and the Classification of Henwood v. Harrison: Foucault, Comment and Qualified Privilege', Griffith Law Review, vol. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 34-60. [ Details... ]
  • Chris Dent and Andrew T. Kenyon, 'Defamation Law's Chilling Effect: A Comparative Content Analysis of Australian and US Newspapers', Media and Arts Law Review, vol. 9, no. 89, 2004, pp. 89-111. [ Details... ]
  • Russel L. Weaver, Andrew T. Kenyon, David F. Partlett, Clive P. Walker, 'Defamation Law and Free Speech: Reynolds v Time Newspapers and the English Media', Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 37, no. 5, 2004, pp. 1255-1316. [ Details... ]

Created: 3 September 2009