The BBC states “the
law of defamation allows individuals, groups of individuals, companies or firms
to sue for damage to their reputation. You can defame someone by publishing
material in various forms and people can sue so long as the material can be
reasonably understood to be referring to them.”
To me, one of the
most prominent examples involved Keira Knightley and an anorexia libel claim
back in 2007. The actress accepted £3,000 High Court libel damages after The
Daily Mail published a story about a 19-year-old girl who had died as a result
of the eating disorder. The article, headed "If pictures like this one of
Keira carried a health warning, my darling daughter might have lived", was
published alongside images of Knightley in a bikini on holiday.
The claim was
supported by Knightley’s solicitor who said the paper suggested she had an
eating disorder and held some responsibility towards the girl's death.
Additionally, the story came only a few days after the newspaper had already
targeted Knightley’s weight under the headline “It's itsy bitsy teeny weeny Keira Knightley”. By tackling such a sensitive topic in a tactless way that highlights
the negative sides of celebrity culture, The Daily Mail could be seen to
jeopardise the actress’ reputation.
Nowadays, the stigma
around anorexia is widespread in relation to celebrity culture and female role
models. With negative connotations surrounding the illness, female celebrities can
constantly be seen in the press in regards to body image. Despite the defendant
claiming the article was of public interest and alerted mothers to the dangers
of anorexia, The Daily Mail lost the case. Knightley matched the £3,000 she was
given before donating it to the charity Beat which helps sufferers of mental
illness.
Knightley's slim figure was emphasised as she was captured on holiday in a bikini. http://s1041.photobucket.com/user/SweeterYet/media/Kiera%20Knightly/keira-knightley-anorexia-1-23-07.jpg.html |
But how can
journalists prove a story is of public interest without being sued for damaging
a celebrity’s reputation? In this case, I think it was clear The Daily Mail placed
Keira Knightley in a position which suggested she had been a poor role model
for the deceased young girl. By using pictures of the actress that emphasised
the shape of her body, the article could be seen to highlight that young girls aspire
to her unrealistically thin form. I believe it was right for the newspaper to emphasise
the dangers of anorexia through the reporting of the girl’s death, but to
attach Knightley to the article was unnecessary and harmful to the celebrity’s
reputation. There’s a thin line between what journalists claim to be of public
interest and what content can be sued by celebrities, but this is an issue that
all journalists have to face.