Campaigners for libel reform were jubilant on Tuesday when Jack Straw announced changes to the law which may come into effect after the election.
But there were some important omissions from the announcement:
Web writing for the skimmer
Get right to the point and make your web writing more effective.
Almost nobody reads from left to right, top to bottom any more. Most of us skim. We are trying to get as much information as we can for as little effort as we can get away with.
Here is an article I didn't read: The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations Apologies to its author, but I didn't have time and I couldn't work out what it was really saying. This is why:
When people skim they give more weight to the information in certain places:
o The first couple of words of the headline
o The first five words of an obvious picture caption
o The first few words of any page furniture (stand-firsts, pull-quotes, cross heads, box heads)
o The first five or six words of the intro
o The first few words of each paragraph
So when I saw the article above what my brain actually took in was
... and I thought it might be interesting , so I skim read on. But there was no picture caption or other page furniture. What do the cross heads tell me?
... not much.
Now I read the first five words of each paragraph. What do I learn?
Twitter. Facebook. Digg. MySpace. LinkedIn. (Good - interested again)
Many traditional and non-traditional media... (going off the idea)
The main purpose of this... (starting to get bored)
The report will respond to...(eyelids beginning to droop)
Media industry publications and critics... (zzzzzzzz)
Understanding where traditional news organizations...
It is about Twitter and it is a report. I know nothing else about this piece because I didn't read any more. It is unfair on the poor author but I really am that ruthless... and so is everyone else.
Jakob Nielsen's research shows that we skim a web page in a few seconds and we use the words we find in the tops and lefts of the text to decide whether to read on.
For a writer, the answer is to get straight to the point. The words at the beginning should carry the greatest meaning. Don't use headings like Introduction. Say instead, for example, Audiences Expect to Contribute. Now the skim reader (everyone) gets more value from your writing.
Look at the start of each paragraph. Do we learn anything about what is in the paragraph. If not, you are not getting to the point quickly enough.
PS: for an example of someone doing it better see A Better Mattress in the Economist although I would have a caption on the picture.
Almost nobody reads from left to right, top to bottom any more. Most of us skim. We are trying to get as much information as we can for as little effort as we can get away with.
Here is an article I didn't read: The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations Apologies to its author, but I didn't have time and I couldn't work out what it was really saying. This is why:
When people skim they give more weight to the information in certain places:
o The first couple of words of the headline
o The first five words of an obvious picture caption
o The first few words of any page furniture (stand-firsts, pull-quotes, cross heads, box heads)
o The first five or six words of the intro
o The first few words of each paragraph
So when I saw the article above what my brain actually took in was
Social . Media . Journalism . News
... and I thought it might be interesting , so I skim read on. But there was no picture caption or other page furniture. What do the cross heads tell me?
Introduction . Literature Review
... not much.
Now I read the first five words of each paragraph. What do I learn?
Twitter. Facebook. Digg. MySpace. LinkedIn. (Good - interested again)
Many traditional and non-traditional media... (going off the idea)
The main purpose of this... (starting to get bored)
The report will respond to...(eyelids beginning to droop)
Media industry publications and critics... (zzzzzzzz)
Understanding where traditional news organizations...
Before being able to define...
Others have evaluated the news...
Others have evaluated the news...
It is about Twitter and it is a report. I know nothing else about this piece because I didn't read any more. It is unfair on the poor author but I really am that ruthless... and so is everyone else.
Jakob Nielsen's research shows that we skim a web page in a few seconds and we use the words we find in the tops and lefts of the text to decide whether to read on.
For a writer, the answer is to get straight to the point. The words at the beginning should carry the greatest meaning. Don't use headings like Introduction. Say instead, for example, Audiences Expect to Contribute. Now the skim reader (everyone) gets more value from your writing.
Look at the start of each paragraph. Do we learn anything about what is in the paragraph. If not, you are not getting to the point quickly enough.
PS: for an example of someone doing it better see A Better Mattress in the Economist although I would have a caption on the picture.
Could US libel work in the UK?
US libel laws seem to work fine alongside robust free speech protection. Why can't we have their laws in the UK?
Free speech is valued more highly in the US than it is in the UK. There is no getting away from it. In the UK, people's right to privacy, their right to a fair trial and their ability to protect their reputation frequently outrank others' right to free speech. In the US, free speech trumps all.
The increasing use of the English libel laws to stifle free speech has triggered a robust campaign for their reform. If you don't live in England, don't worry: our judges can still get you. If what you write is downloaded in England from a website anywhere in the world, the High Court in London will hear a case against you (I focus on England because judges in Edinburgh are no so keen on libel tourism).
Recently, I was asked to explain to some US journalists how the English libel laws might apply to them. Mostly, they were unprepared for the shock. It got me thinking.
In 49 out of 50 States they use the English common law system and, at heart, US libel laws are the same as those in England. The differences are in interpretation. But thanks to the US Constitution's first amendment guarantee of free speech, those differences are stark.
Here is what I thought. The US has a modern, free-thinking libel regime, but it works within English common law. Can't we just adopt their libel laws in the UK? They seem to work fine in the US.
[Note: I am not so keen on how the first amendment interacts with people's right to a fair trail, nor am I keen on US citizens' second amendment right to bear arms. In the UK, one is far more likely to be sued for libel; in the US, one is more likely to be shot.]
Here are some of the ways in which US and UK libel law differ:
Strict liability
Most law in the US and UK operates under the strict liability rule. Ignorance is no defence. If you run a red light, it does not help your case to argue that you did not see the light, nor that you did not know a red light meant stop.
In the US, strict liability is lifted for libel in the interests of free speech. This means you can argue, for example, that you did not know, or could not foresee that what you wrote might cause problems for someone. Good intentions matter.
In the UK, strict liability still operates. This means your intentions don't matter. You are judged on how other people interpret your writing. It means you can be sued over a typo, or an inferred meaning that did not occur to you when wrote the piece.
o In the UK, you are judged on the worst-case interpretation of your writing that someone else can reasonably make.
o In the US, you are judged on what you intended to say.
Burden of proof
In both jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defence. The difference is in who has the burden of proof. In the UK, the writer is assumed to have got things wrong. If they want to use the defence, they will have to prove the truth of what they wrote.
In the US, the plaintiff (the person suing you) has to prove that what you wrote was false. In fact, US courts make a distinction between those who seek publicity (celebrities and big companies, for instance) and those who don't. If you are sued by someone in the first group, not only do they have to prove that you got it wrong, they have to prove that you knew it was wrong when you wrote it, or that you behaved with a reckless disregard for the truth.
o In the UK, you have to prove truth.
o In the US, they have to prove falsity and may have to prove you knew it was false.
Harm
o In the UK, there is no requirement for the person suing you to show they have suffered as a result of what you wrote.
o In the US, there is.
Free speech is valued more highly in the US than it is in the UK. There is no getting away from it. In the UK, people's right to privacy, their right to a fair trial and their ability to protect their reputation frequently outrank others' right to free speech. In the US, free speech trumps all.
The increasing use of the English libel laws to stifle free speech has triggered a robust campaign for their reform. If you don't live in England, don't worry: our judges can still get you. If what you write is downloaded in England from a website anywhere in the world, the High Court in London will hear a case against you (I focus on England because judges in Edinburgh are no so keen on libel tourism).
Recently, I was asked to explain to some US journalists how the English libel laws might apply to them. Mostly, they were unprepared for the shock. It got me thinking.
In 49 out of 50 States they use the English common law system and, at heart, US libel laws are the same as those in England. The differences are in interpretation. But thanks to the US Constitution's first amendment guarantee of free speech, those differences are stark.
US journalists were mostly unprepared for
the shock of the English libel law
the shock of the English libel law
Here is what I thought. The US has a modern, free-thinking libel regime, but it works within English common law. Can't we just adopt their libel laws in the UK? They seem to work fine in the US.
[Note: I am not so keen on how the first amendment interacts with people's right to a fair trail, nor am I keen on US citizens' second amendment right to bear arms. In the UK, one is far more likely to be sued for libel; in the US, one is more likely to be shot.]
Here are some of the ways in which US and UK libel law differ:
Strict liability
Most law in the US and UK operates under the strict liability rule. Ignorance is no defence. If you run a red light, it does not help your case to argue that you did not see the light, nor that you did not know a red light meant stop.
In the US, strict liability is lifted for libel in the interests of free speech. This means you can argue, for example, that you did not know, or could not foresee that what you wrote might cause problems for someone. Good intentions matter.
In the UK, strict liability still operates. This means your intentions don't matter. You are judged on how other people interpret your writing. It means you can be sued over a typo, or an inferred meaning that did not occur to you when wrote the piece.
o In the UK, you are judged on the worst-case interpretation of your writing that someone else can reasonably make.
o In the US, you are judged on what you intended to say.
Burden of proof
In both jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defence. The difference is in who has the burden of proof. In the UK, the writer is assumed to have got things wrong. If they want to use the defence, they will have to prove the truth of what they wrote.
In the US, the plaintiff (the person suing you) has to prove that what you wrote was false. In fact, US courts make a distinction between those who seek publicity (celebrities and big companies, for instance) and those who don't. If you are sued by someone in the first group, not only do they have to prove that you got it wrong, they have to prove that you knew it was wrong when you wrote it, or that you behaved with a reckless disregard for the truth.
o In the UK, you have to prove truth.
o In the US, they have to prove falsity and may have to prove you knew it was false.
Harm
o In the UK, there is no requirement for the person suing you to show they have suffered as a result of what you wrote.
o In the US, there is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
