The Simple Sword of Truth, and the Trusty Barge Pole of Cowardice

Defamation is perhaps one of the most worrying things a journalist can confront. Usually encountered while court reporting (but by no means limited to), a claim of defamation means an accuser thinks that something published concerning them has damaged their reputation and lowered right-minded peoples opinion of them. In many cases, a defamatory statement will expose the subject to hatred, ridicule and contempt from their peers, often resulting in Libel action. You can get an idea of how journalists view being presented with a defamation charge, in that there is actually a name for the feeling you get when considering even a genuine, unbiased story on a person or group that is particularly litigious: The 'Chilling Effect'. For example, the Church of Scientology has filed dozens upon dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of lawsuits, funded by their enormous wealth and influence. Here is a policy letter written by L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of the Church of Scientology), distributed in early 1966:

This is correct procedure:

1. Spot who is attacking us.
2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.

Against such a code of conduct, I don't blame people for getting the willies.

Fear not however, we aren't doomed to the dole queue just yet. Journalists are awarded certain defences, provided that they follow a certain code of conduct. The first of these defences is Justification, or to put it simply, Truth. If the reporter can present evidence showing that the published matter in question is in fact true, then this provides complete protection against any libel action. A very famous example of justification at work was that of Conservative cabinet minister Jonathon Aitken who filed Libel actions against The Guardian for reporting that his bill for the Ritz hotel in Paris was paid for by an Arab associate, in direct breach of ministerial guidelines. He even resigned from his post stating that he would:
 "Fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play". 
After four years of investigations and court trials, evidence was found that proved that Aitken had been lying all along, and that he had been willing to have his daughter lie under oath to protect him, saying that it was his wife Lolicia Aitken who had paid for his hotel stay, when it was in fact found that she had been in Switzerland at the time and it would have been impossible for her to have done so. Aitken was faced with legal costs of £2 million and an 18 month prison sentence (of which he served 7) for committing perjury and perverting the course of justice.

While the Aitken case is a fantastic example of justification at its best, they aren't all quite as interesting. Another defence afforded to journalists is Privilege. This gives protection to publish potentially damaging material in accordance with the principle that justice must be seen to be done. As journalist are the eyes and ears of the public, they are allowed to report things that could be defamatory, as long as it is considered in the public interest to do so. Reports may only hold privilege if they are fair and accurate, otherwise you may well find out just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

The last main defence of defamation is known as Fair Comment. This is essentially exactly what it says on the tin. Such a comment may be published as long as it is: the honestly held opinion of the writer; recognisable as opinion (not presented as fact); based on provably true facts; linked to theprovably true facts, in the same publishing (unless so well known as to make it unnecessary); on a subject that is a matter of public interest. On the plus side it doesn't have to be 'fair' (I know, the name confused me too), a judge/ jury does not have to agree with it to rule it fair comment, as long as it is honest opinion - in other words, not malicious - then we're home free.

The 'Bane and Antidote' defense was also discussed, which is where One would write something negative, followed by something appealing to kiss it all better. However, as far as I can make out, this is very dodgy ground to be used as a defence for defamation, so I would personally not touch it with the preverbial barge pole, could it be avoided.