justification deals with the defamatory meaning, not statement.

of course the burden of proof is on the defendant on a balance of probabilities. if the statement is in fact substantially true is, however, a matter ultimately for the jury (defamation is the only civil action remaining that requires the use of a jury, although the Court of Appeal and House of Lords may overturn a ‘perverse’ decision). in this case it seems to me that there is sufficient unequivocal evidence to raise such a defence.

the only time it may not be used is if the defence of innocent defamation has already been raised, but i don’t think that even comes close to applying here.

and more fundamentally, isn?t it a basic rule of defamation that any material which is TRUE may not be defamatory?

you might want to re-clarify that stand. As with all laws and rules, there are exceptions to exceptions, or legal circumvention/creativity.

and more fundamentally, isn’t it a basic rule of defamation that any material which is TRUE may not be defamatory?

The first thing I did after I read the first ‘funny’ CNA report was to google for other works by the same writer. They are really not bad. So why is this particular CNA report ‘weird’? What’s the real story behind this? Maybe that’s what the other bloggers are trying to discern. And then comes later reports, which I agree with you doesn’t really mean they are trying to ‘conceal anything’, and naturally people’s sensitivities are heightened to hidden meanings between the lines and so on haha

And so, the thrust of our inquiries is not just about CNA per se, but like you say, the people who give them the stories! (But of course, I personally am very interested to know what goes on in newsrooms too!)

I think Lippmann’s model can be quite neutral, maybe just to raise ratings, still not so bad. But sometimes governments can take advantage of this to their benefit, like, of course, manufacturing consent to war. (Bush’s brilliant use of CNN syndrome). But like you say, it’s just the way it is…

On an almost totally unrelated note, I personally know journalists on the ground for CNA and really, journalism is not just a job, it’s a passion (and i know this perfectly well. i’m a media student yet no way am i going into journ cos it’s very tough :P). Those in this line know what they want and do abide by their journalistic ethics (if they want to lie, be a PR Officer lah!). In fact, I’ve been told they most of them are anti-government.

For AcidFlask’s case, I don’t think CNA meant to conceal anything. Seriously. Blog posts have no word limits whatsoever but news articles observe several layers of editing and stringent lengths. Further the audience they reach is vastly different: CNA reaches the masses while bloggers reach people who specifically source for information on their websites.

Both sources of information take into account different considerations while editing their content: being bloggers we understand our point of view but shouldn’t we take a step further to understand the newsroom?

Bottomline: we are now exposed to alternative sources of information so why don’t we just make full use of it, instead of complain about the inadequacies of the paper when we know it’s bounded by more restrictions than the Internet database?

I can go on about the workings of the media tied in with the government affected by public opinion, (see Walter Lippmann’a agenda-setting model of any of you are interested) having studied about these issues for the past 2 years of my life. But being the intelligent bloggers you guys are, I’m sure I don’t have to go into that right?

: D

With the boon of certainty, would AcidFlask then be able to adopt a certain strategy as well?
One scenario is whereby he does realise his words are indeed libel and post a conclusive apology.
The alternative is whereby he feels that his words are not defamatory, and take a confident stand against PY. Right now, he is in limbo, which is exactly what PY wants, because most people in such a situation would ‘err to the side of caution’ and make an unreserved apology’.

I wish to further add that such careful use of language, while seemingly innocuous, can be cunningly deceptive as well.

Think of a scenario where a girl is forbidden from clubbing by her mum and one day she wants to go clubbing, but she does not want to lie.

Mum: Where are you going?
Girl: I am going out with some friends
Mum: Ok, have fun, don’t come home too late.

Rather than

Mum: Where are you going?
Girl: I am going out clubbing with some friends.
Mum: You are forbidden from clubbing. You cannot go.

(Remember she does NOT want to lie, in the 1st instance, she is technically not telling a lie, yet she gets to get her cake and eat it)

As we can see, the Girl cannot said to be Lying per se, but the impression of her intentions given to her mum in the 1st and 2nd example are very different

Of course, in CNA’s situation it is not about lying or deception or whatever, it is about not wanting to publish false or inaccurate facts.

CNA#1: “bribery, misuse of money and misbehaviour” - stated as fact. If found to be falsetious or inaccurate, may be liable to lawsuits. Also, may be used against them if in future, ’suddenly’ other accusations ‘pop’ into the equation.

CNA#2: “legal constraints” - wide scope, generalised. If this was ‘really’ the reasons which PY has given to them before, it ensures they do not hinder PY who are certainly researching and looking for additional substantive grounds on their allegations, which would elsewise may be delimited by CNA’s threefold grounds.If its not, well, then they are reporting facts wrongly. Both ways, generalisation seems a better option.

ST#1: Indeed non committal, perhaps trying to cover up the kinks in CNA that were spotted by eagle eyed bloggers by adopting a similar strategy of Ivan’s (ie fusing both statements together to show that it can form one coherent whole, but they went one step further by ensuring it was phrased in a non commital way;)

CNA#1: “A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation?s integrity, such as bribery, misuse of money and misbehaviour.” (as captured by Ink)

CNA#2: “A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation?s integrity. But it could not comment on what exactly was defamatory due to legal constraints.”

ST: “A*Star declined to reveal the exact nature of the statement on its lawyers’ advice, as this would amount to repeating the libel. Such remarks could include direct accusations of bribery and misuse of public money, for example.”

(Notice that in ST, the second sentence is non-committal as to whether it is a comment by A*Star, or an explanation provided by the journalist)

* * * * *

Ok, now about those ancient manuscripts of the bible. The situation is this:

- Manuscript A originally has “God said ‘x’”, crossed out, and replaced with “God said ‘y’”.

- Manuscript B says “God said ‘y’, and that may be like ‘x’”

The textual critic conjectures:

1. Both A and B are derivative of an earlier Manuscript C that probably says something like “God said ‘x and y’”.
2. The scribe who gave us the final form of A had access to C, but somehow felt that having God say ‘x’ or ‘x and y’ is doctrinally incorrect; so he stuck to “God said ‘y’”.
3. The scribe who gave us B also had access to C. Furthermore, he seems to consider himself smarter. On the one hand, he wants to preserve both ‘x’ and ‘y’, but understanding the doctrinal controversies surrounding the former, wrote in an additional qualifier.