Qualified Privilege

There is a law which exists to protect the moral and professional reputation of the individual from unjustified attack. This is defamation. Defamatory statements are those that; expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt; cause the person to be shunned or avoided; lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or disparge the person in his/her business, trade, office or profession. There are two types of defences for the charge of defamation which are, absolute and qualified privilege. Privilege is a defence against an action for libel which attaches to reports produced from certain events, documents or statements.

The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else. As a journalist if you are reporting in Parliament or courts you have a defence of qualified privilege automatically when repeating, publishing, or broadcasting defamatory remarks. In order to have the defence of qualified privilege, you must have published something immediately with no errors or malice. (Fast, accurate and fair.) Absolute privilege is not available to journalists, however if, in practice, your report is free from error and if it is published immediately then the qualified privilege confers a similar degree of protection.
If, as a journalist, you are attending a public event such as a local government meeting, then the defence of qualified privilege is available to you, just as long as you allow the defamed person to deny allegations in the same report.
The other point which is very important in regards to the defence of qualified privilege is the Reynold's 10 point test for journalists. The 10 point test was established in the case of Albert Reynolds vs The Sunday Times. In this case the Sunday Times stated that the Irish Prime Minister (Ablert Reynolds) lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The paper could not prove the allegations when challenged by Reynolds as they had no witnesses and no evidence. However, when the case went before the higher courts, the judges stated that the Sunday Times had not only a right but a duty to publish the allegations because they seemed to be reasonable and it was in the public interest to be published. The 10 points that were established as a result of this test are:
1) The seriousness of the allegation.
2) The nature of the information.
3) The source of the information.
4) The steps taken to verify the information.
5) The status of the information.
6) The urgency of the matter.
7) Whether the comment was sought from the claimant.
8) Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.
9) The tone of the article.
10) The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

If a journalist covers all 10 points of the Reynolds Test and they have the public interest, then they may have a qualified privilege in making defamatory allegations outright without quoting someone who is protected by absolute privilege.

This is an interesting case of qualified privilege:
Connecticut Supreme Court Limits Employer's Qualified Privilege in Defamation Actions:
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1730