Public Relations and the Law

It’s been just over a year since the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling which significantly tilted the nation’s libel laws in the media’s favor.  Only now are some corporations starting to understand the full implications of that ruling for their PR and media strategies.  Most remain dangerously in the dark.

How an individual or a company responds – or doesn’t – to a media story is profoundly impacting their legal options if they feel they have been libeled or slandered by a journalist.

Background

Put simply, the high court ruled that a media story, while it must be in the public interest, doesn’t necessarily have to be true.

The ruling means journalists can make factual errors.  But as long as they take a series of steps – in other words exercise “responsible journalism” – to ensure fairness in stories that are deemed to be in the public interest, they cannot be successfully sued for libel.

Media lawyers have hailed the creation of the new defense as “a gift” and a major step towards reducing so-called libel chill, which can cause journalists to back away from contentious stories for fear of being sued, often by powerful interests with high-priced legal teams.

Interestingly, the ruling also extends to non-traditional journalists such as bloggers and users of other social media such as Twitter.

The ruling has changed the focus of court cases – and potential court cases – from the truth of the facts to the behavior of the journalist and of the individual or company that’s suing – or thinking of suing – a media outlet for a damaging story.

What it means for Your Clients

A good public relations person will always respond in an effective and timely way to media requests for information, reaction or interviews.  The reality is many don’t.  And now ineffective or untimely response can severely limit or negate a company’s legal options when it comes to a damaging report in the media.  The potential damage to your clients’ reputations can be enormous and permanent.

What happened to a major Canadian retailer recently could happen to your clients if they fail to respond effectively to a media story.   A recently aired news report which strongly suggested that the an employee of retailer created a safety hazard by tampering with the customer’s property, in order to sell him a replacement part he didn’t need.

That claim may or may not be true – there’s simply no way to prove it.  However, the reporter did reach out to the company for comment.  The head of PR then took three whole days to get back to the reporter and then responded with a written statement that did not adequately address the issue.  By the time the report appeared on online the company went into full damage control and demanded the story be pulled.  But it was too late; the story was out there.

After the report aired, the company served notice of its intention to sue for damages.  When the media lawyer presented the retailer’s legal team with the sequence of events – which made clear the untimely and ineffective response of the PR person – the retailer backed down.

The company realized – after they were reminded of it by the media lawyer – that they had handed the broadcaster a defense that would likely get the case thrown out.

The journalist had exercised responsible journalism by giving the company more than enough time to respond.  Because the company – through its PR person – chose not to, the reputational damage was done and the company was denied any legal recourse.