Selective quoting is an age-old art. Using someone else’s words to benefit one’s own narrative has long been a tactic used in journalism and political discourse. With the ever-growing ability to publish information in an instant and clip, edit and broadcast to million of people in seconds, the potential for reputational damage has grown exponentially. This raises a critical question: where should the line be drawn between quoting in a way that distorts any original meaning and allowing journalists free reign over the content they produce?
At its core, defamation law seeks to protect reputation. As established by Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 , a defamatory statement is one that lowers the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or adversely affects the attitude of other people towards the claimant. Since the introduction of the Defamation Act 2013, claimants in England and Wales must now also demonstrate that the publication of the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.
Selective Quoting as a Defamatory Act
In English defamation law, disputes about selective quoting almost always turn on meaning. The court’s task is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning that the publication would convey to the hypothetical reasonable reader, taking into account the publication as a whole rather than isolated extracts. As set out by the Court of Appeal in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, this reader is not naïve but is not unduly suspicious, can read between the lines, and draws inferences without engaging in over-analysis. Selective quoting becomes particularly problematic where it elevates the meaning conveyed beyond what the underlying material can properly bear. This is often analysed through the framework established in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11, which distinguishes between allegations of guilt, reasonable grounds to suspect guilt, and grounds for investigation.
By stripping away qualifying context or surrounding explanation, a selectively edited quote becomes legally problematic when it distorts the meaning of a statement so significantly that it creates a false or misleading impression effectively conveying something that the original speaker never intended, or transforming what might otherwise be neutral or ambiguous material into a defamatory imputation of wrongdoing.
Recent Libel Claims around Selective Quoting
This tactic can be especially damaging when used by journalists or media commentators, whose words carry weight and reach wide audiences. A libel claim brought by Labour donor Dale Vince against political blogger Paul Staines– Vince v Staines & Tice [2025] EWHC 412 (KB) centred around this issue. The claim arose from an edited clip of a Times Radio interview, which was published in a way that distorted Vince’s original comments. Staines later agreed to pay damages and legal costs. The case highlights how even minor edits, if misleading, can become defamatory when they change the substance of what was said.
But perhaps the most famous contemporary example of the reputational stakes in selective quoting and editing comes from the legal challenge filed by U.S. President Donald Trump against the BBC. In November 2025, Trump filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit in the Florida federal courts alleging that the BBC’s Panorama documentary edited his January 6, 2021 speech in a way that misleadingly suggested he encouraged violence at the U.S. Capitol, arguing that the splicing together of separate clips gave a false and defamatory impression of his words.
Whilst the BBC acknowledged the edit was an “error of judgment” and apologised for the way the clip was presented, but rejected that there was a legal basis for a defamation claim and said it would defend the case, while also seeking dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. The dispute—triggering resignations of senior BBC executives and debate about editorial standards—brings into sharp relief how easily meaning can be altered through selective editing in major media and sparks questions about the boundaries and accountability of broadcast and online publications.
Social Media and the Rise of Contextless Content
In today’s social media landscape, short-form content thrives. Clips are snipped to fit algorithms, often prioritising engagement over accuracy. This environment creates fertile ground for libel. The ease with which individuals can publish content without editorial oversight increases the risk of defamatory selective quoting going viral before it can be corrected.
Crucially, many of these cases fall outside traditional journalism, leaving individuals exposed to reputational harm without recourse to the usual professional accountability mechanisms such as internal policies and resolution measures The law is therefore increasingly being called upon to address these modern realities.
It has now become easier than ever before to publish defamatory content given the extent to which social media platforms are left unregulated. So, what does this mean for selective quoting?
Limits of the Honest Opinion Defence
One potential defence in defamation claims is honest opinion. But this defence is limited. As the courts have clarified, the opinion must be based on true or accurately stated facts – to be discussed. If the facts are distorted or misrepresented, as is often the case with selective quoting, the defence collapses.
This was highlighted by Windeyer J in Christie v Robertson [1899] SLR 36 899 , who warned that it is not lawful ‘to grossly misrepresent the conduct of a public man, and then to hold him up to execration for his alleged wrongdoing’. Despite this case dating back over a century, it remains highly significant, especially given the ability to defame on social media. The principle that Windeyer J enunciated was recently reaffirmed by Mr Justice Jay in Dyson v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3092, confirming that editing a quote to give a misleading impression is not protected as mere opinion.
Drawing the Line
Selective quoting, while often subtle can have serious legal consequences. Selective quoting is not unlawful because it is selective, but because it risks crossing the line into false attribution of meaning. As courts increasingly grapple with the impact of digital media, the line between fair comment and defamatory distortion is becoming sharper.