The Globe and Mail's editorial board likes the 'responsible journalism' ruling delivered this week in the Ottawa Citizen defamation case.

From the editorial: (paywalled for non-subscribers)

Some might see the new ruling as encouraging sensationalism. They might wonder whether the media will declare open season on individual reputations, particularly among those in positions of influence. But the court did not go as far as the United States Supreme Court went in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan when it said that, provided there was no malice - reckless disregard for the truth or the printing of deliberate falsehoods - the media could say what they wanted about public figures in relation to their official conduct. For an innocent person to prove that a newspaper showed malice toward him is enormously difficult; in Ontario, the onus will be on the news media to show they met the professional standards of the day.

It was time to move the law out of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, where it had become stuck. Britain, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa allow for responsible-journalism defences. "A newspaper that has properly investigated the story and has every reason to believe it to be true still walks on thin ice," Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe wrote for the Ontario court, describing the state of the law before his ruling. "The fear or risk of being unable to prove the truth of controversial matters is bound to discourage the publication of information the public has a legitimate interest in hearing."

Historic, that overused word, applies to the ruling. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is 25 years old, and it has taken this long to throw off the stodginess in the law that kept the news media in their place. Reporting on documents before a court or local council has long been fairly safe, but showing enterprise without relying on such documents was much more of a high-wire act. That limit on reporting initiative harmed the public interest in free and open debate.

A commitment to truth is now the first line of defence for the news media. It would be inaccurate to say the gloves will come off; the media will not be free to cheapen or demean. It's the shackles that have been taken off.