SECTOR 4 worst cases, journalists “in the pay of someone or some organisation” are paid to attack citizens. However, says a panellist, “when a person is attacked, he/she should at the very least be given the opportunity to defend himself/herself”. Some members of the panel, however, urge that the press should not be castigated indiscriminately. Regarding the number of lawsuits, one should not be misled by the admittedly impressive number of hearings for the same case, due to the numerous adjournments. For example, one of the panel members mentions his own personal case, with a lawsuit that has been going on for three years and for which he appears every time he is summonsed - giving the mistaken impression, he says, that he has a season ticket or free pass to the palace of justice. Besides, he adds, the publication for which he is accountable to the court has once again been called to the witness box over articles for which a proper correction had nevertheless been published. Moreover, the apparent inflation of lawsuits against the press is because the plaintiffs want to go to court, even when the journalist – acknowledging that he/ she has made a bona fide mistake – has granted them the right of reply or rectified the erroneous information in accordance with the law and the rules of conduct. In support of this argument, the panellist recalls the case, some years ago, between the daily Walf Grand Place (since acquired by the journalists and now called Grand Place) and an automobile dealership in Dakar. The newspaper had published the information which elicited a complaint after waiting for ten days, in vain, for the firm to respond to its request for a reaction. In another example, a land dispute in Keur Massar,20 one of the parties had lodged a complaint against the newspaper Le Quotidien, although the latter had treated the protagonists as equals, on the one hand, and had published the documents that the complainant had produced for its case, on the other. It should be noted, according to this panellist, that the complainants are more likely to sue for defamation than for the dissemination of false information. In the first case, the publication must answer for complicity with the author of the statements or allegations reported and run the risk of being convicted; in the second, the journalist and the publisher of the media concerned are often able to produce proof of the relevant information. 20 in the greater Dakar area AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER SENEGAL 2013 113