What would Isabel do?

Posted by Tony on Dec 2, 2008 in General Thoughts |

South African blogger Donn Edwards is being sued for libel by a timeshare company called Quality Vacation Club (QVC) after he wrote of his experience with the company. I have no axe to grind with the timeshare industry. But if they bend the rules and dupe people into buying things they don’t want, then they should get exposed.

But this post isn’t about the rights and wrongs of Donn’s case or the relative sleaziness of those who employ dodgy means to sell timeshare. What worries me, as someone who from time to time vents online about bad or downright shady service they get from someone, is the prospect of the floodgates being opened for litigation from any big corporate who is feeling hard done by or belittled by a blogger. This is going to be an interesting test case for South African online journalism and free speech.

But there’s another angle to this. Bloggers are quick to demand the same rights afforded other media and citizens, to jump up and down if they feel they are being silenced or muzzled in some way. However they are less quick to adopt some of the practices the other media use to ensure that, in exercising their right to free speech, they also adopt the principles of fairness and balance.


In a newspaper, radio or TV newsroom there are gatekeepers. People who read copy, scanning it for any hint of inaccuracy or looming lawsuits. By the time the story is aired or published, there’s a reasonable chance it is accurate. And when it is not, the industry self-regulates. Apologies, retractions and corrections follow. Given how much news is generated every single day, the fact that lawsuits are few and far between shows that the system works. (Although some still lie awake and worry – unsubstantiated rumour has it that every edition of Noseweek is published under a different shelf CC, shielding the assets and the business from the lawyers of the big corporates the magazine regularly pisses off with their probing but sometimes scurrilous, sensational and occasionally skewed and smug reporting style).

But in the blogosphere no such gatekeepers exist. The only “reason check” sits between the bloggers brain and their fingers. Ranting, typing and publishing is all too easy. The problem is that many bloggers are picking and choosing the bits of the practice of conventional journalism that suit them, and ignore the bits that don’t. And then they hide behind “free speech”. But with Google, RSS feeds and Trackbacks, whatever you write on your blog is going to stick around far longer than what is printed in a newspaper, which is destined to wrap fish and chips tomorrow. And blogs have a potential audience far wider. So, if anything, bloggers should be more cautious than “traditional” news journalists.

I have zero sympathy for the timeshare companies. And Donn Edwards seems to have written an honest and factual, albeit one-sided, report on his experience with them. And he’s already won in the court of public opinion. But he was never going to lose there, was he? If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and walks like a rat then, yes, everyone agrees that it is probably a timeshare salesman. And legal opinion quoted in the Sunday Independent suggests that Donn will prevail in court. Which, in turn, implies that QVC (who presumably have been told that by their phalanx of lawyers) are merely flexing their muscles and bullying Donn. In so doing I think they have grossly underestimated the blogosphere and the damage they are doing to their own brand – which is way more than, ironically, they are suing Donn for. So, in this instance, I hope that he sticks it out and wins the battle and doesn’t settle out of court.

But there’s a warning in his experience that all bloggers, myself included, should heed. If you’re going to play in the sandpit of journalism, learn all the rules. Even if you plan on breaking them. At least learn from the dozens of court cases that have preceded you. Just because the online world is on screen only, it doesn’t mean that the real world laws of defamation and libel don’t apply. And just because you are your own headline writer, journalist, copy editor, editor and publisher, it doesn’t mean you have latitude to ignore the basic courtesies, practices and principles of good journalism.

And, actually, the rules can make for more compelling and convincing writing. A while ago I blogged about an experience I had at the Constantia branch of Woolworths. I wrote up the piece, appended the photographs I intended using, and sent it to the Woolworths media office before I clicked “Publish”. They responded well – giving me time to talk to some of their senior staff who could address my issues. They were open and honest (adopting the corporate PR mantra “Tell the truth. Tell it fast. Tell it well.”). It didn’t stop me publishing or using the photographs, but I was able to amend what I had written to be fairer to them, to reflect their views, and a whole new angle to the story emerged that was, frankly, more interesting than what I had written in the first place.

And if you don’t learn from any of that, take a lesson from the doyenne of fair play. I was fortunate once to work with the late Isabel Jones – every consumer’s champion, and every sleazeball’s worst nightmare. She was a remarkable woman – tenacious and tiny, with the demeanour of Jessica Fletcher until she was patronised or rubbed up the wrong way by someone in a shiny suit and white shoes. She was happiest when she was being chased down the street by spanner wielding mechanics, cameras rolling and microphones live. Those who watched her on TV or listened to her on radio actually had the wrong impression of Isabel. They thought – because she wanted them to think – that she was a no holds barred, pull no punches street fighter. She wasn’t. She was equally quick to spike a story or stop reporting on it if she felt that the company under the microscope was unfairly coming out of it badly. Sometimes consumers are simply stupid. And they would threaten and argue with people, and misrepresent their story to get Isabel on side. She had no time for that. Were she alive today I would have loved for her to have a blog. And she would have done it well. She was never hysterical. She was always questioning herself as harshly as she questioned those across the desk from her. She was her own gatekeeper. And no-one messed with her. See – one person working solo can do it. So should we all.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Comments

Donn Edwards
Dec 4, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Tony, you have a lot of good things to say, and it is too easy to click “Publish”. I did my best to contact QVC and even had a phone conversation with John Meyer, the QVC chairman who is now suing me. I asked for meetings, but these have been refused.

I agree that bloggers don’t have the advantage of a whole news process to calm things down, and it is a vulnerability. Perhaps we could come up with a method whereby each blogger previews the entries of another blogger, and then clicks the “publish” button?


 
Tony
Dec 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Hi Donn
I think that’s a great idea – a sort of sanity check for bloggers (come to think of it, why don’t you register sanitycheck.co.za and get started with it?). Could include some basic protocols and tips for bloggers – the kind of thing journalists learn when they get their qualifications – maybe a section on media law, defamation etc, and most importantly a forum called “Sleep on it” which is a place for people to publish things, viewable only to other registered users, to get some sanity and reason into their piece before they publish.
Set it up – would be happy to contribute having worked in the media, run the PR department for a large corporate and even attended a couple of lectures in pursuit of my Journ degree. just a couple, though, not all. Just enough to pass.

Good luck with the QVC case – DO NOT BUCKLE or allow yourself to be bullied. They will back off when they realise the can of worms they have opened.
Tony


 
Charles Webster
Dec 4, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Hi Tony, Donn – I’d be happy to help too, also having worked on both sides of the PR/Newsroom divide. If we can just get bloggers to understand the principles of factual accuracy and public interest, we’d have gotten a long way. I’m no lawyer either, but I dare say Donn’s case meets both of these criteria from a legal point of view, if my old media law textbook is anything to go by…


 
William Smith
Dec 6, 2008 at 8:57 am

Tony / Don / Charles … its great to see that there is consideration around content which can be potentially damaging. As a business owner and consultant, we regularly deal with unrealistic expectations and difficult concerns which reflect poorly if taken out of context.

My view is that no matter how damaging the report, we should respect that the view of the individual is just that – a personal take on the issue. We often debate whether ‘fact’ is in fact, factual or perceptional and both have merit … particularly in the industries where we operate, perception can be more damaging than fact!

Should you require assistance in vetting content or set up infrastructures to manage this, we would certainly be in a position to assist. Our close association with legal firms allows us leaway to engage at low cost where necessary to lend protection and provide advice which will stand up in court should it be necessary.

I really enjoyed reading the content and I sympathise on the timeshare issues … also being a ‘victim’ of the industry (… have to admit though that I have had positive experience with some of these providers). I wonder whether the timeshare companies in general consider the vicarious liability they contract for all the yarns their salesman spin? Maybe someone should tactfully remind them and whom better placed than a supreme court Judge?


 

Reply

Copyright © 2010 Tony Lankester All rights reserved. Theme by Laptop Geek.