Winslet wins £25k from Daily Mail

Kate Winslet has today won £25,000 damages from the Daily Mail over reports the paper ran in January this year that questioned her diet. Today's award follows an earlier apology by the paper and a successful action against Grazia magazine in 2007 after it claimed she was seeing a diet doctor.

The Mail gloated over the 2007 award against the magazine and reported the fact Winslet had donated some of her award to a local eating disorder charity. The tabloids have been fuelling the obsession over weight against which the likes of Winslet are campaigning and so can't help themselves speculating over their weight and fitness regimes. The announcement of today's settlement just confirms the fact that when it comes to securing a splash over speculation about a celebrity's weight or fitness normal ethical principles go out of the window. What Mediabeak thinks is surprising is that the award is fairly modest in terms of 'going rates' for libel - perhaps its because Winslet was not using a CFA.

Sun stung after failing to prove Tory smear campaign story

The Sun splashed its exclusive back in April that there was a Labour plot to smear the Conservatives via a political rumour website 'Red Rag' but it now appears the only bull it has attracted has been Carter Ruck's litigation team who have today secured an apology and substantial damages for Tom Watson who it had - as has now emerged - falsely accused of being part of the plot to smear the Tories along with labour spin-meisters Damian McBride and Derek Draper.

Bit of a sorry indictment on The Sun and its former political scrutineer Trevor Kavanagh that what was a great scoop has now proved to lack the sting and has ended up in court as yet another apology and big libel bill because the story was either untrue or the paper had not been able to make it stand up to legal scrutiny. While todays reluctant sorry in the High Court and damages payout will, rightly subject the journalism to scrutiny, the public impact of the original story will have been far greater.

What Mediabeak thinks is a shame is that IF the impact of the story could be backed up with robust journalism that stood the test of legal action then we would have more faith in the papers and columnists who expose the dodgy dealings of politicians. Handing over yet another damages cheque and mumbling sorry in court might seem a commercially viable offset to the circulation generated by the offending story but its not a victory for journalism. While many of Carter Ruck's practices and cases may be seen as thorn in the side to the press, in cases such as these the financial pain the press suffer is a justified and important reminder of the fact that if you can't substantiate the story then don't be surprised if the lawyers come knocking at your door.

BNP Question Time debate - the BBC failed

Huge debate surrounded the BBC's decision to invite and allow BNP leader Nikc Griffin onto its 'flagship' programme Question Time. No one has emerged a winner - if there can be one in such a situation.

Contrary to silly suggestions that allowing Griffin on TV would be 'illegal' it was not - how can one in a democratic society legally prevent someone who is an elected politician - even if we find this distasteful and unacceptable - from appearing on a debate on a publicly funded state broadcast channel. We might not like what people have to say but to the extent we rely on our democratic and legal process we have to accept that the rules dictate they have a right to say things (subject to laws such as incitement etc) and there is not a law that prevents people (subject to the rules of contempt of court or certain criminals) from appearing on television.

What Mediabeak thinks was the main failing of Question Time is the fact that the first question was 'loaded' and referred directly to the BNP and so made the BNP the main subject of Question Time debate rather than allow a series of subjects to be presented to the panel and see what Griffin had to contribute. So Question Time turned into a debate about the BNP and whether Griffin was a Nazi and should be on TV rather than a programme that allowed viewers to hear Griffin and others debate issues of the day. Had the editors/producers let the programme take its course it would have made for more plausible and useful television. Instead we have a programme that did not answer many questions, provided the papers with the headlines they chose to intrpret and left no one truly wiser.

Do we like what Griffin has to say or stands for - no - BUT has he a case to complain to the BBC that his treatment on the BBC was biased, yes. In a sense there is a greater honesty to his racial offensiveness than the opportunistic and hyperbolic vitriol spouted by many politicians whose real views we can be less certain of.

Sick, sad and stupid Jan Moir and the Mail misjudge the issue

She's not said sorry but 'apologised' for the timing of her rambling which the Mail decided to publish in the wake of Stephen Gately's untimely death. Jan Moir epitomises what the Mail is about and the words 'objective analysis' or 'reasoned response' or 'timely insight or analysis' do not spring to mind.

Getting the record for the most complaints ever lodged with the PCC is not some sort of accolade but testimony to the journalistic and editorial failings that allowed such a piece to be printed. The key theme that ultimately determines judicial decision making and should be filtered down to the foodchain to editorial decision making is CONTEXT. While one can argue that a debate over certain lifestyles or the use of stimulants or alchohol are important and timely, linking such line of enquiry over a - as it was at the time - yet unresolved cause of death of a public figure such as Stephen Gately is, in the circumstances as naive, ill-timed and ultimately offensive.

The key question here is not why Moir penned such a piece - there is nothing preventing her as a commentator or columnist taking the stance or adopting the angle she did (whatever one might think) - BUT it is ultimately the Mail's editorial process that allowed her ramble to be published and so it is the paper that takes the responsibility for dissemintating her views. So we might want to bash Moir but without the Mail she would not have her platform so the question IS - was the Mail right to publish her 'contribution' to the 'debate' she allegedly sought to generate based on - what she has admitted was ill-timed - the link to Gately's death and lifestyle.

No. The Mail has a wider duty and that extends to assessing the public mood surrounding an event (Gately's death) and issues (lifestyle, sex etc) and deciding when it is appropriate to link the factual reports of one to the conjecture surrounding another. Both the Mail and Moir got it very wrong.

Daily Mail gets sued by Chelsea

The Mail should beware. A writ filed at the High Court in London this week claims that its handling, through Chief Executive Peter Kenyon, of the departure of business affairs boss Paul Smith was unprofessional.

Only a few years ago The Times ended up having to pay out £250,000 damages to Southampton FC Chairman Rupert Lowe over claims he had acted 'shabbily' in suspending the club's manager. In that case the claim succeeded even though it was comment by a sports columnist. In the current case the report was reported editorial fact based on an alleged 'cat fight' between Kenyon and Smith's partners.

Both Chelsea FC and Kenyon are claiming loss of reputation and distress as a result of the article and that the supposed spat between their partners was behind Smith's departure. Another aspect of the claim that will not be in the paper's favour is the suggestion that it had not sought response from the club or Kenyon pre-publication. The right to reply and/or putting to the potentially defamed party the facts upon which the story is based are seen as important stepping stones to satisfying the test for the journalism in question as being responsible.

An out of court settlement might be a good option for the Mail here as if it proceeds to trial it could see its legal bill match the precedent set by the Lowe v Times case.

PCC to probe Gately comment by Moir in Mail - over 21,000 complaints

The PCC has said irrespective of whether friends or family lodge a complaint, the regulator will launch its own inquiry.

Jan Moir's insensitive ramble has caused widespread outrage and sent the Twitterati into overdrive. The amount of complaints received by the PCC now exceeds 21,000 and represents more than the regulator has received in total over the past five years.

While the heat of the debate centres on Jan Moir, the wider issue for the Mail to ponder and the public and PCC to question is whether the paper's decision to publish was appropriate. Moir may have penned her poison piece but the paper decided it was acceptable to publish it. In doing so it has certainly judged the mood wrongly. Whether this misjudgement of mood directly breaches the PCC code is subject to interpretation and debate. It may seem easy to defame the dead but the ethics of doing so demand some debate.

Endgame in Trafiguragate - Carter Ruck folds as Guardian secures free speech win

The Trafigura question has - without seeking to overstate the case - put democracy and freedom of expression to the test. Social media has displayed its role and effectiveness in following and promoting the debate and - to be fair to Carter Ruck - they have done everything they could for their clients, posturing by raising the sub judice angle to seek to diffuse the debate in Parliament, Alan Rusbridger (Guardian editor) was pushing for.

This evening it appears - as reported by the Guardian - that the paper has been 'released from restrictions forthwith' and justice can prevail through the proper and unfettered reporting of the issues.

So the reporting of information about the alleged dumping of toxic waste off the Ivory Coast has now been made possible. The irony is that in seeking to suppress the story the company is now center stage not merely for its waste dumping but also for its advisers attempts to suppress its activities. In this endgame it was the attempt to suppress the information and influence Parliamentary process that has drawn the focus of attention to this case.

TO the extent that the underlying questionable act of dumping waste is a legitimate focus of attention, the attempts to suppress or even pervert the democratic process have a more enduring resonance. The true crime in this case would have been if legal process (via what has been dubbed the 'super injunction') could have been used to suppress information and debate because a corporation could afford lawyers to scare off the press and enlist judicial support for their position.

While this case may not resolve or alter Trafigura's working practices it has raised and hopefully reasserted a fundamental democratic principle that the public has a right to know and the media a corresponding right to report what issues are raised and debated in Parliament.

Carter Ruck went the distance for their clients but ultimately they had to concede the endgame - had they not then one of the cornerstones of the democratic and legal process upon which they sought or may in the future seek to rely on would be undermined and be called into question - the ability to scrutinise and debate without undue influence is a crucial principle that deserves to be fought over and upheld. The law should be there to preserve rather than deny this right irrespective of who holds the cheque book.