7.4 INTERPRETING THE COMMUNICATION
7.401 Basic Rules.
Determining the meaning of an alleged defamatory statement is crucial. That meaning drives how courts and juries decide whether a statement is defamatory, factual (not opinion), or false. Courts follow several basic rules to interpret a statement.
· 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." 4103
· The meaning must be found "from the words used therein construed as a whole." 4104 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." 4105
· The words are to be "taken in their plain and natural meaning" and interpreted "as other people would understand them"; 4106 and
· The meaning may come not only from the actual words spoken but also from any "inferences fairly attributable to them." 4107 Thus, "[d]efamatory statements may include statements made by inference, implication, or insinuation." 4108
7.402 Print Media.
A. In General.
The Virginia Supreme Court has applied these basic rules of interpretation to newspaper articles. 4109 But alleged defamation by newspapers or other print media defendants may involve other 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 rest of the article is not. 4110 Other courts hold that the context of an article determines the interpretation of the headlines. 4111
7.403 Electronic Media.
Electronic media (for example, television or the Internet) presents numerous issues in defamation law.
For example, a television broadcast conveys its meaning with words, pictures, and sound. So any combination of the three may defame a plaintiff. 4112 Courts therefore must consider more than the words used when evaluating issues such as defamatory impact and protected opinion. 4113 "[T]elevision medium offers the publisher the opportunity, through visual presentation, to emphasize certain segments in ways that cannot be ascertained from a mere reading of the transcript." 4114
Email and other Internet communications likewise raise interpretation issues. How should courts and juries understand statements coupled with "emoticons," "emojis," "likes," hyperlinks, and other electronic context material? 4115 A growing number of courts outside Virginia have held that the "freewheeling" style of Internet statements on social media and blogs tends to convey protected opinion. 4116 Electronic communications also generate hotly contested jurisdiction...
