Chapter 8: Press Law
        

Definition of libel: a false and defamatory attack, in written form, on a person's reputation or character.

Note that it has to be both false and defamatory.  Simple untruth isn't sufficient if no harm is done; defamatory info isn't libel as long as it's true.

New York Times Rule (Times vs. Sullivan):  This Supreme Court decision established a difference between the libel standards applied to public figures and those applied to private figures.  The federal rule they established "prohibits a public official from recovering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'--that is knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

It's very important to recognize that private individuals have more protection from libel than public figures (the New York Times Rule was expanded to include public figures, in the many categories outlined by your book).  

For private figures: the burden of proof is less stringent. In many states, they need prove only negligence rather than actual malice (laws vary by state). For public figures, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and in addition to proving a defamatory falsehood the plaintiff must prove "actual malice" (knowledge of untruth or reckless disregard of the truth).

Defense for libel suits

--lack of defamatory content
This defense varies from state to state, since laws vary.  For instance, your AP Stylebook points out that it seems to be legally acceptable to insult someone's appearance (the hard-boiled egg example). And it's pointed out that in New York, many accusations "may or may not be defamatory, depending on the circumstances of the case."  In short, this can be a tricky  defense to negotiate.
--truth 
Theoretically, the burden of proof of libel is on the person bringing the lawsuit.  Nonetheless, a newspaper conducting a defense against libel will be best able to defend itself if it can prove the truth* of its reporting.  In some states the paper must also prove that there was reason to publish the material; it has to be newsworthy.
*must be true in itself; it’s not enough that it is a truthful account of what someone said
it’s not enough simply to say that something is ALLEGEDLY true, though you will often see it handled this way--though one hopes only when someone has been formally charged with an action.
--privilege:
Government officials acting in their official capacity are protected against libel.
Reporters have "qualified privilege" to report on statements made during official government proceedings. 
--fair comment:
OPINIONS on matters of public interest are allowed; false FACTS are libelous, even in opinion pieces. Thus, I can say that I think someone's actions show him to be a dishonest scoundrel in the vest pocket of Satan, but I can’t say that I think he stole a car (unless, of course, he did). Satire, parody and hyperbole (in certain instances) are protected as opinion.

RETRACTIONS DO NOT ABSOLVE A NEWSPAPER OF GUILT, though they usually reduce the likelihood of a suit.

Remember that anyone can sue, though not everyone can win.  The difficulty for the press comes in part from the burden of legal fees.  It's entirely possible to win a libel case but still be forced out of business because of the costs.  That's one of the reasons why large news organizations have legal teams that examine stories before they are printed or broadcast.

If you make a mistake and defame someone in a story in The Georgetonian, these are the people who could be on the hook: you; the editor of the page on which your story appears; Doug Hardin as editor; me; President Crouch; and the entire college (which would be the supposedly "deep pocket" someone would love to exploit).  Are you surprised we want you to be careful??

Criteria for libel
--you must be living
--you must be identified
--you must be defamed
--the libelous piece must be published (though what constitutes publication is sometimes surprising)


PRACTICAL APPLICATION:

Questions you should ask:

Is what you wrote capable of defamatory meaning?
Does the story refer to a specific, identifiable individual?
Do any privileges apply (opinion; fair comment; neutral report--only in some states; qualified privilege/fair report)
Are you reporting on a public figure or public official, or are you talking about a private person?
Is the topic of public concern?
What investigation was done in preparation of the article, and what sources did you use? In other words, can you prove the potentially defamatory statements are true?

Recognize when something is "fair comment" or "opinion" and when it is not.

DON’T ACCUSE ANYONE OF ANYTHING in a straight news story without specific factual basis. Be VERY careful about how you present negative information.

Privacy 

Invasion of privacy is DIFFERENT from libel. You may not intrude into individual’s private lives without their consent, which means no eavesdropping or surveillance. Does this mean that various "hidden camera" stories are an illegal invasion of privacy? Well, let's look at four distinct forms of cause of action in suits for invasion of privacy:
misappropriation of name or likeness for commercial purposes
public disclosure of private facts
unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion
false light in the public eye

Realize that the invasion of privacy involves both legal and ethical issues; we'll talk about the ethical issues next time.

For Thursday:   Press Law Test--the real thing. Also, we'll spend some time talking about accuracy and ethics in reporting. Read the handout.