1, 2, 3, 4 - 4 estates, QP and the all-important 10 point test

We learnt yesterday, in a session on media law (which held particular regard for the idea of constitutional rights to knowing how the state is working - thereby reinstating the common obligation of the journalist to report on the running of a country, i.e. by its government), of the existence of four prominent estates: 1) Executive (Whitehall), 2) Legislature (Parliament), 3) Judiciary (High Court, Crown Court) and 4) (perhaps most important) Journalists.
The fourth estate is the one we're most interested in, as it is through the dominion of this fourth estate that we are granted the ability, and right (via the three core defences: 1) justification, 2) fair comment and 3) qualified privilege (statutory or common law)) to uphold the mediation of occuring issues within government and, on a broader scale, society itself. I use the word 'mediation' here because it is of the utmost importance that when presenting a case of some sort to do with any bureaucracy, organisation or higher individual (PM for instance) that attests to certain allegations (see Reynolds defence) being justifiable, or at least conceivable ("on the balance of probabilities"), you must accommodate both sides of the story, for example if Simon Singh is expressing his opinion on the chiropractor profession, which he is entitled to do through comment, but is potentially defaming them, he should ensure that he allows them the right to protest against any allegations made. This links to the critical 10 point test, which determines systematically if a report is really of a serious public matter.
This, nonetheless, is steering away from the main article, which is about the fourth estate itself. In this fourth estate we find the journalists, our honourable emissaries of the public, who in instances of reports relating to matters of superior public interest can be referred to as 'watchdogs'. In effect, journalists can now be recognised as a uniform, fundamental body that has the capacity, and gall, to question and repudiate actions made in the higher echelons of society, but only when it is of actual concern, as goes the 10 point test.
It would be considered that, in law, statutory qualified privilege (that which connects defence with defamatory accusations made by official institutions of power/authority, further defended by the report's associations with court or any other qualifiable establishment) or common law qualified privilege (the defence against bodies in libel cases that constitutes provability in a report that appears unjustifiable) are both prima facie defences to be used by watchdog journalists. But, the most vital element to suppporting any report into the necessary authorities is the 10 point test (and the fatal error system must also be acknowledged), which goes as follows:

1. Seriousness of report - the more serious, the better!
   
2. Nature of information - public concern equals protection (companies included)
   
3. Source of information - no your sources, check them out (but don't cheque them); must be reliable and honest (more than one source? Brilliant! Two heads are better than one)
   
4. Independent verification - provide proof of your attempts to verify your allegations - put your money where your mouth is
   
5. Status of allegation - stale bread doesn't float, so avoid old case material
   
6. Urgency of report - the news is a "perishable commodity", or is simply very important (in view of the public)
   
7. Claimant's capacity to deny - don't hog the story, let the claimant at least deny your reasons to report (see the case on George Galloway by the Daily Telegraph)
   
8. Gist of claimant's denial included - for your practical safety
   
9. Tone of article - don't assert your report as fact; draw it up fairly and without malice
   
10. Circumstances of publication - publish reports ASAP. Don't wait till you think the time or price is right

In simple terms: watch your back! The last thing a journalist needs is a lack of evidence to support the credibility of his or her report. Keep in mind FAF (Fast, Accurate and Fair). The ability to distinguish between fact and comment is invaluable when writing up your report. If you have justification for an alleged fact, for example official documents stating X said Y about Z, then you can afford to be more concrete in your report. But if you're lacking this support, try and stick to expressing comment. The ability to use QP (either type, depending on the circumstances) is an assured lifeline in a libel case against you, so use it. But all these defences must be taken with a pinch of salt; DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR OR ARE TOLD! If you work from the ground level up and keep in mind aspects of defence like the 10 point test, whilst thinking in the frame of mind of reasonable human being and you're mindful of avoiding being caught up in a deliberately defamatory agenda, you should be relatively safe. There's also the option of becoming a 'bloodhound' journalist, evolved from the watchdog - but this is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Another substantial rule of thumb to bear in mind is this: conserve the public interest. Be your own Superman! Make Clark Kent proud.