Defamation cases are notoriously

hard to win...and getting harder. Our ideas about what is defamatory change too. 

I came across a page on the New Zealand parliament's site recently. It talked about "unparliamentary" language and gave some examples of what has been considered offensive in the past. 

One of the first, in 1933, is "shrewd old bird". Many people would now take that as a compliment. 

They were finding "pipsqueak" offensive in 1936. It is likely the meaning was not quite the same at that time but is it offensive now?

In 1959 someone apparently found being called a "kookaburra" offensive. Well I suppose those birds do have a raucous "laugh".

In 1963 it was said of someone that he "sits on his behind". Lazy? I have heard it said often. 

There were more on that page but it was clear that the acceptable language in parliament has changed over the years. I was also aware that, in parliament, there is a lot of name calling. It is also possible to say things you cannot say outside parliament and be immune from prosecution for defamation. It is generally not wise to do this but it is done from time to time. 

Outside parliament it is a different story. Defamation is more common than many people realise. It does more harm than people realise too. We are all too ready to believe the worst of people, not the best. It is why the news media has a particular and special responsibility to be accurate. The problem is that accurate news might not sell as well. If you depend on advertising for the income which sells the "news" you want to present then you can be sure it will be "sensationalised" and often far from accurate. 

The problem with the BBC doing this however is that it is showing an unacceptable bias. It is even worse that our ABC mindlessly repeats it. Think of it as the BBC broadcasting stolen goods and the ABC receiving and broadcasting stolen goods. 

In the case of Mr Trump suing the BBC the stolen goods are the manipulated words they broadcast. It was a stupid thing to do but no doubt the journalists and editors involved thought it served a purpose. Trump is unlikely to get anywhere with his outrageous claims for compensation. He is out of time and out of jurisdiction.  That said however it should still tell the rest of us that the behaviour of the BBC was wrong too.

It can happen to other people as well - and all too frequently does. There will sometimes be the "apology" read out in the news services on the following day or appearing (usually not too obviously) in te paper.  All too often the media knows the damage they intended has been done. Even paying "compensation" is seen as part of it.

When it comes to the rest of us though it is much harder. It is all too easy to defame someone and cause permanent damage. The words we use do matter.