Defamation explainer
CASE: REBEL WILSON VS BAUER MEDIA
In the world of journalism, there are certain boundaries one must follow when publishing news and media. Arguably, the most important is the accuracy, truthfulness and intent of the content. When these principles are not adhered to, it is known as defamation and comes with mild to severe ramifications, depending on the case.
Expanding on this, defamation, put simply, is to release information about a person or entity that harms them and in its worst form, is the intentional spreading of false news with or without malicious intent. This can damage one’s reputation or cause financial loss. To accuse someone of defaming you, there are three key principles that must be evident in the claims. The words must have ‘defamatory meaning’ and be easily understood as harmful by society, the words must target a particular and are easily identifiable and the words or content must be published, and open for public viewing (Defamation In Australia, 2019). I have chosen to explore a defamation case between Bauer Media and Rebel Wilson to explain the key principles of defamation, as I believe this is a case that accurately showcases them.
The source above depicts the cruel nature of defamation, saying, “Publication by which other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him,” in reference to the man in the center of the image (Darlow, 2013).
In June 2017, Rebel Wilson won the largest defamation payout ordered by an Australian court. This was after Bauer Media defamed her in a series of magazine articles published in “The Woman’s Day”,” Woman’s Weekly”, “New Weekly” and “OK Magazine”, (‘I was just doing my job’: Ex-Woman’s Day journalist defends Rebel Wilson article, 2017) , claiming that she had lied about certain aspects of her life to seem more “Hollywood oriented” (Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal, 2018).
The original payout of $4.7 million to heal the damages to Wilson’s career and reputation was reduced to $600,000. This is due to an appeal by Bauer media claiming “The original amount was excessive”, and adhering to certain defamation principles in their appeal (Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal, 2018) . Although the payout was dramatically reduced, Bauer Media still took a blow financially and to its reputation. “Specific false information was spread about her age, real name, upbringing and alleged she had added a ‘touch of Hollywood’ to her backstory” (Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal, 2018). This was the essence of the claim Wilson and her PR team made. Wilson went further to say “I had to stand up to a bully, a huge media organisation, Bauer Media Group, who maliciously took me down in 2015 with a series of grubby and completely false articles.”(Younger, 2017). Wilson stated this after the reveal of the $4.5 million in winnings, and the statement stands true as it’s clear to see the articles were published with ill intent. We can also see that the case consisted of the three key areas of defamation. It was easily understood by society as it was simply claims made by a magazine article, open to public view as it was published in many of Bauer Media’s magazines, and was easily understood as harmful by society as it was blatant lies about her life and upbringing.
Cited above is a source that can be used to describe the steps one follows when defaming another person or entity (may be unintentional). It’s clear to see the parallels between this source, and the nature of the Bauer Media Vs Rebel Wilson Defamation Case.
In order to defend against an accusation of performing defamation, there are various ways in which a defendant can do this, though it can be very difficult. These include truth, public interest defense, triviality versus serious harm and honest opinion, which are all commonly used. Although it was clear that the articles were published with ill intent, Bauer media made the claim that there was, “Insufficient proof that it had majorly affected her from receiving film roles”(Rebel Wilson ordered to repay millions in defamation case, 2018). Bauer Media making this accusation reveals how they were using elements of truth, triviality versus serious harm (as the damages to her career and reputation didn’t match the excessive initial payment) and honest opinion, which is therefore why the payment of 4.5 million, was reduced to $600,000 after the appeal. This was a win for Bauer Media, however, it stained their reputation and validity. Furthermore, Wilson has stated that the $600,00 payment didn’t exactly heal the problems the articles created, as she believed she wasn’t casted in multiple movies ( e.g. Kung Fu Panda), because of these articles.
The best strategy to avoid being falsely accused of defamation is to be wary of content that is published, ensuring that no one could sue for defamation. Not all defamation cases are like Wilson’s, and sometimes defamation can be accidental, but if it causes harm to an entity or person, legal action is highly likely. “A news organisation might carefully avoid naming a person, as the ABC did, but it could still be liable if a reader would have known who that person was”(Cliff, 2021). This statement by the conversation shows just how easy it can be to be defamed, highlighting how ABC avoided naming Christian Porter in “social media chatter” (Cliff, 2021) in regards to the allegation of sexual assault set upon him though was still liable for defamation.
To conclude, the defamation case between Rebel Wilson and Bauer Media highlights the effect of when a company prioritises headlines and public attention over ethical media practices and compliance with the law. It is evident that the ramifications can be huge and this case shows the damages defaming can do to the victim. It is important that when we post content, we must ensure that the information is truthful, that it will not harm an individual or entity or be perceived as negative. It is important to avoid falling into defamation criteria when publishing news and media content, as defending a defamation accusation can be notoriously difficult.
REFERENCE LIST:
Florence, L. and Younger, E., 2022. ‘She crushed it’: Rebel Wilson wins Australia’s largest defamation payout. [online] ABC News. Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/rebel-wilson-defamation-damages/8936850?nw=0&r=Gallery> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Laywers, o., 2018. What Rebel Wilson’s case against Bauer Media tells us about Defamation | Owen Hodge Lawyers. [online] Owen Hodge Lawyers. Available at: <https://www.owenhodge.com.au/blog/what-rebel-wilsons-case-against-bauer-media-tells-us-about-defamation/> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Abc.net.au. 2018. Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal. [online] Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-14/rebel-wilson-defamation-payout-reduced-on-appeal/9868300> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Legislation.nsw.gov.au. 2022. View – NSW legislation. [online] Available at: <https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2005-077> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Design, D., 2019. Defamation in Australia. [online] Thenewsmanual.net. Available at: <http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Younger, E., 2017. Rebel Wilson wins defamation case against ‘bully’ publisher. [online] ABC News. Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/rebel-wilson-wins-defamation-case-against-bauer-media/8609670?nw=0&r=Gallery> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
BBC News. 2018. Rebel Wilson ordered to repay millions in defamation case. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44625076> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Cliff, B., 2021. Why defamation suits in Australia are so ubiquitous — and difficult to defend for media organisations. [online] The Conversation. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/why-defamation-suits-in-australia-are-so-ubiquitous-and-difficult-to-defend-for-media-organisations-157143> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Darlow, B., 2013. History of Defamation. [image] Available at: <https://englishlegalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/history-of-defamation/> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
gifs.com, 2019. Lies and Slander. [image] Available at: <https://gifs.com/gif/futurama-lies-lies-and-slander-y5418z> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Thenewsmanual.net. 2019. Defamation in Australia. [online] Available at: <http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Abc.net.au. 2017. ‘I was just doing my job’: Ex-Woman’s Day journalist defends Rebel Wilson article. [online] Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-06/rebel-wilson-womens-day-journalist-stands-by-story/8593720#:~:text=Wilson%2C%2037%2C%20is%20suing%20Bauer,her%20as%20a%20serial%20liar.> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Pinterest, 2022. Defamation. [image] Available at: <https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F721490802774819498%2F&psig=AOvVaw0oKkllCfKTKy0s9LZUIFTi&ust=1650253938751000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCMjZl5KZmvcCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Sean Welch - HOME PAGE 
Leave a comment