Judicial discourses about journalism in journalism-related judgments in the United Kingdom (UK) since Reynolds

In the 1999 case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers, a qualified privilege defence was developed to libel action. However, section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 abolished the defence and replaced it with a new defence of ‘publication on a matter of public interest'. This paper combines n-gram and qualitative approaches to analysing discourses about journalism in 228 journalism-related judgments since Reynolds. Findings suggest a fluctuating increase in cases, particularly in those involving defamation and libel, and a rise in non-news organisations as sole or primary defendants. The acknowledgement of journalism's right to freedom of expression in judicial discourses of journalism weakened over time, placing an increasing emphasis on journalism's responsibilities, ethics, and its watchdog role, particularly after 2013. These changes suggest courts’ evolving interpretations of journalism and related issues, reflecting legal values that could significantly impact journalistic practices, with alarming implications for media freedom in the United Kingdom.