7.4 Interpreting the Communication

• Library: The Virginia Lawyer: A Deskbook for Practitioners (Virginia CLE) (2018 Ed.)

7.4 INTERPRETING THE COMMUNICATION

7.401 Basic Rules. Not surprisingly, a key analysis in this tort based on words involves determining what meaning the words actually convey. When weighing an allegedly defamatory communication against the many legal standards discussed below, courts follow several basic rules of construction.

• The words themselves must be viewed in context, with "all the surrounding facts and circumstances . . . taken into consideration, and the whole case . . . looked at in the light of its own particular facts." ⁴⁹

• The meaning must be found "from the words used therein construed as a whole." ⁵⁰ As one court put it, "to determine if a publication is defamatory, the Court must look at the entire communication and not examine separate sentences or portions or with an eye constrained to the objectional feature alone." ⁵¹

[Page 848]

• The allegedly defamatory words are to be "taken in their plain and natural meaning" and interpreted "as other people would understand them";52 and

• The meaning may come not only from the actual words spoken but also from any "inferences fairly attributable to them." ⁵³

7.402 Print Media.

A. In General. The Virginia Supreme Court has explicitly applied these general rules of construction to newspaper articles. ⁵⁴ However, alleged defamation by newspapers or other print media defendants may involve additional interpretation issues.

B. Headlines. Some courts (apparently believing that some people read only the headlines and not the story) find that a headline itself may be considered defamatory even if the accompanying article is not. Other courts hold that the context of the accompanying story determines the interpretation of headlines, rather than considering the headlines in isolation. ⁵⁵ Although the Virginia Supreme Court has not addressed this issue in over 80 years, an old case takes the former view. ⁵⁶

C. Electronic Media. The rise of electronic media has raised fascinating questions as defamation law tries to catch up with advancing technology. For example, a television broadcast conveys its meaning with words, pictures, and sound. Any combination of the three may defame a plaintiff. ⁵⁷ For this reason, a court considering an allegedly defamatory television

[Page 849]

broadcast must consider the visual impact as well as the words used. ⁵⁸ "[T]elevision medium offers the publisher the opportunity, through visual presentation, to emphasize certain segments in ways that cannot be...