[cma-l] Precedent

[CMA-L]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: tim eames <eamestim at hotmail.com>

Hi Karl,

I think you can make a distinction between what a volunteer presenter
may do/say, and the way the station deals with it overall.

>From what it says in that article, it sounds like what ultimately
irked GG was not so much what the presenter said, as the station's
response afterwards.

That's why it's a good idea to have some form of signed presenter
'contract' in place for anyone who's in charge of a programme - can
just be a very basic one page document, but they're signing to say
that as a station, you've been through the legal stuff with them and
they understand it and agree to adhere to it.

Then if someone DOES say something libelous, you have a good enough
damage limitation system in place, which starts with an apology and
includes demonstrating that what the presenter did was opposite to the
good policy you'd been through with them.

I would also still doubt that libel insurance would be of much use in
such circumstances.

Tim

Karl wrote
>
> [...]
>
> As much as we try to put the correct type of fear, based on sound
> knowledge of the risks and thorough B/C training, into our programme
> makers, as time goes on I'm wondering just how big that gap is, whether
> we're actually being complacent about the training ethic seeing
> everything right and whether or not some kind of safety net is actually
> a good idea....