As a legal practitioner representing George Governor as his lawyer, I am certain that CNBC should be charged with defamation and negligence for actions leading to defamation of my client’s reputation. Reputation is one of the most significant aspects of the political arena since it entails the trust of many individuals. For an individual to be elected for a given political office in a democratic state, they must be able to convince and buy the trust of a bigger percentage of the region’s registered voters. Acquiring public trust and confidence majorly entails portraying a good reputation to the target voters. This paper strives to highlight some of the negative impacts of defamation on an individual’s political career and how they can get remedies.
In the case of CNBC, the defendant is liable for defamation because the information they portrayed about George Governor was untrue and caused harm to his reputation, leading to losses. It is the responsibility of a reputable media outlet like CNBC to ensure credibility and reliability in most of the news that they are reporting to their target audience. Many American citizens are followers of CNBC media, meaning that every piece of information written by the corporation about a given person reaches too many individuals. The statements made by CNBC were found to be false statements, and the media organization is liable for reporting false news about George Governor, leading to defamation.
The level of falsity that the plaintiff has to prove to the jury is that the individual being talked about in the reports by CNBC Media Corporation is not him but his twin brother. The information portrayed my client as a criminal in the banking sector, which is also a false statement ruining the reputation of George Governor. The plaintiff can still sue the media corporation for negligence if he cannot prove actual malice in the defamation case. CNBC acted out of negligence to negative air information about George Governor because they found the story newsworthy and of public interest. However, the broadcasters should have investigated more to ensure the source’s credibility by working with the American justice system to gather more information and proof. Another instance was CNBC acted out of negligence was when they declined to give out the source of information, which gave the plaintiff the confidence that the act was out of actual malice leading to defamation.
The available defense measures for the defendant in the case include the Qualified Privilege, which allows a media organization to air any information they perceive as newsworthy and of great public interest. The matter of George Governor is of major public interest because it involves the people voting for individuals who will handle public resources and make decisions on behalf of a large number of citizens. However, Qualified Privilege rule majorly applies only if the media outlet has effectively verified the credibility of their information regarding a given issue.
The ruling of the case should in favor of the plaintiff George Governor because the information aired about him is false statements that ruin an individual’s reputation in the general public. The act can be considered as an act of malice because George Governor’s competitor wasted to utilize the opportunity to gain political favors by ruining his reputation. The court should request the defendant CNBC to indemnify the plaintiff of all the damages caused by them due to their act of negligence by reporting false news without verifying the credibility of the information.