Matthew Evans, the former chief food critic at the Sydney Morning Herald, was sued over his 2003 review of Sydney restaurant Coco Roco. Following a $3 million fit out, the King St Wharf diner claimed to deliver a “new level of dining,” but Evans said “more than half the dishes I’ve tried at Coco Roco are simply unpalatable.” A jury decided that the review was not defamatory, but on appeal, the High Court judged the article to defame the restaurant.
An article in the SMH today makes the obvious point that this opens could open all critics up for similar actions.
Leo Schofield (himself the subject of a similar case in 1989) said:
If a poor review leads to diminished returns at the box office of the theatre, are we going to now say that it is due to the review and not to the quality of the work?
Is it possible that a situation like this one – where a local music writer and his publisher wound up at odds with a record label over a negative review of the band (the label allegedly threatened pulling their advertising) – could wind up in court? It’s hard to imagine a review in the Brag (the Sydney street press publication in question) deciding the fate of a new pop group like the Cops – music reviews just don’t do that any more – but what if it was shown to set the scene for ensuing coverage?
Not being a lawyer, I missed a crucial point, which cearta.ie explained here.
But this is only half the story. Because of the procedure adopted in the case itself, the proceedings were being conducted ahead of any consideration of the newspaper’s defences. No defence had yet been filed. Doubtless, that will be the next stage in the proceedings. So, we are only at half-time. The second half of the case is still to come, in which the newspaper can seek to rely on various defences, including no doubt fair comment. If the newspaper loses at that stage, then there can be wailing and gnashing of teeth. But not yet.
Moreover, the decision that the review could bear a defamatory meaning was not even the main thrust of the High Court’s decision. That was whether the Court of Appeal had the power (in the light of general provisions of Australian law relating to practice and procedure in general (section 108(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1970), and of the (s7A) procedure adopted in the case itself in particular), to substitute their similar holding for the different decision reached by a misdirected jury at first instance. On that issue, the High Court decided that the power did exist, and that the Court of Appeal had properly exercised it.
This is so insane. What were the High Court thinking?
Even if the only precedent was for those writing bad Coco Rosie reviews, we’d be in trouble! (haha)
Comment by Peter Hollo — June 15, 2007 @ 4:40 am
I think if you look at the legislation a negative review is defamatory. Kind of ridiculous, huh?
Matt – I disagree with you. I think music reviews completely have that sway still. Think about Pitchfork – a lot of bands are literally made from that site? I guess not so much on a local level, but still. We live in a completely bizarre world.
Comment by Eliza — June 15, 2007 @ 8:02 am
I agree Eliza… reviews influence opinions and can alter the outcome somewhat. The extent of the review’s effect is almost impossible to measure and therefore either side of the equation probably has an argument to make/justify.
Reviewers write from their own perspective and therefore are eternally justified under the clause that is otherwise known as an opinion (and therefore never wrong..ha!)
Reviewers should be accountable for what they write though, and be able to back it up if in the rare occurence that (real) controversy arises.
Most artists are overly sensitive about their work, but then again, most will generally get over bad reviews. If the reviewer is consistent then they’ll be respected. Items for consumption need reviews and reviewers need them..
Comment by Tim — June 15, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
[...] generally online (David Jacobson’s External Insights | digital musings | esoteric rabbit | fortune grey | Nunc Scio | One Man’s Taste | reMARKable palatte) which, so far as I can see, have all [...]
Pingback by cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Unpalatable - defamatory restaurant reviews — June 16, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
The reason I persisted in buying the NME for many years was primarily the laugh-factor of their “0″ rated reviews. The idea that you can’t offer YOUR OPINION about something is just insane. But you can report OTHER PEOPLE’S opinions just fine;
“some people say this record is the worst in history, personally I wouldn’t go that far but others have opined that listening to this release will cause erectile dysfunction in 18 year old males and make a female listener’s arse look big in jeans”.
can’t blame me, that’s just someone’s opinion honestly reported. ;=)
Comment by scot — June 18, 2007 @ 3:49 am
of course reviews influence opinions. why print criticism if that’s not the case? but it’s rarely on the direct or large scale you might expect. for example, restaurant reviewers regularly complain that the places they’re giving chef hats are under-subscribed, while panned eateries get several sittings a night. same with the music industry, theatre, and so on. the influence is more subtle, i guess. it’s somewhere in the cultural capital of the object.
reviewers can definitely be wrong, and there are plenty that make me throw my hands up in the air in disgust every week, but that’s part of (like journalism more broadly) being the first draft of history. reviewers are accountable for what they write, under media and defamation law, but a cowering spineless media is a long way from what you want, i imagine. telling it as you see it is a key pillar in democracy, which may seem like a long bow to draw from writing record reviews, but it’s all part of the same system of journalism, and there are plenty of working journalists who start/ed out in music writing. as andrew mueller (The Face, The Guardian, etc) said when i spoke to him a few weeks ago, dealing with over-sensitive rockers carrying guitars (and hip hop heads with mics) isn’t that different from resistance fighters bearing kalashnikovs.
Comment by matt — June 21, 2007 @ 6:23 am