In media, writers are obliged to distinguish fact from opinion

What you need to know:

  • Readers can agree or disagree with the writer’s opinion because they know the facts upon which his opinion is based.
  • It is also not in any doubt that the Constitution gives every person the right to freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.

Nelson Mandela once said a yawn may not be polite but at least it is an honest opinion. Or was it Abraham Lincoln or Voltaire? It does not matter.

The point is that there are times when opinions are offensive, odious, and hurtful but they are necessary to give full meaning to freedom of expression.

But in journalism, there is a problem. Reporters and columnists are required to differentiate fact from opinion.

This is necessary to enable readers to process the information without being manipulated.

It is also necessary to avoid falling foul of the law of defamation.

Still, there are times when it is not easy to distinguish between a fact and an opinion, or when an opinion becomes a fact and a fact an opinion. Compare these two statements:

“During the past six months I’ve seen the public editor three times in a local bar at around 10pm on a weekday, seated with a beer in his hand and several empty bottles on his table. I think he must be an alcoholic.”

“I think the public editor must be an alcoholic.”

The first statement states facts upon which a reasonable conclusion (that the public editor is an alcoholic) is based, and also emphasises the limits of the writer’s knowledge (he only saw the public editor three times).

This is a legally protected statement of opinion as a fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Readers can agree or disagree with the writer’s opinion because they know the facts upon which his opinion is based.

The second statement is an opinion that is not based on facts. It is not protected. 

Please also note that the first statement, too, could be unprotected if the facts relied on for the opinion are false.

In journalism, opinion must be based on facts or underling facts. Otherwise, the opinion is not protected.

Imagine another scenario. A columnist writes a review of the ongoing interviews by the Judicial Service Commission of applicants seeking the position of Chief Justice.

He states that the performance of one of the judges was lousy.

That statement suggests that the judge is not fit to be a judge, leave alone chief justice.

But it is an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact, though it is based on facts.

OPINION VS FACT

The facts would be what the judge said in the interview that led the writer to conclude that the applicant is not material for high judicial office.

Another columnist, watching the same interview, might conclude that the judge’s performance was excellent.

Thus, the two columnists would come to directly opposed conclusions based on the same facts.

I am asking you to imagine these scenarios because one of the judges appearing before the JSC for the post of CJ complained on Wednesday this week that NMG had allowed some columnists to destroy his character with the intention of hurting his chances of being appointed Chief Justice.

To achieve that, he said, they have peddled falsehoods and distorted facts — meaning that they hold opinions not based on facts.

The complaint touches on the old question of when do opinions give the appearance of being stated as facts and facts give the appearance of being stated as opinions.

It is not in doubt that the NMG editorial policy and guidelines require all its outlets to differentiate clearly between facts and opinions.

The policy goes on to say that in the case of columnists, articles will carry a biographical line setting out their qualifications and, where appropriate, political stance and affiliation.

“For broadcast, programmes will carry a disclaimer where the views expressed do not reflect those of the group,” the policy states.

It is also not in any doubt that the Constitution gives every person the right to freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.

There are only four things that the Constitution says do not include the right to freedom of expression.

These are propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech, and advocacy of hatred. And, of course, the law of defamation.

Send your complaints to the [email protected]. Call 0721989264