{"id":2747,"date":"2005-03-30T09:49:09","date_gmt":"2005-03-30T14:49:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kith.org\/journals\/vardibidian\/2005\/03\/30\/2747.html"},"modified":"2018-03-12T16:48:10","modified_gmt":"2018-03-12T21:48:10","slug":"defamation-nation-or-press-to","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/2005\/03\/30\/defamation-nation-or-press-to\/","title":{"rendered":"Defamation Nation, or, Press to Play"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The CJR Daily, née the Campaign Desk, does an excellent job (or so it seems to YHB) of examining the ways the press works and fails to work. They place stories in context, and they also remove them from camouflaging pseudo-context, and they also on occasion point out stories that are underreported. One such is in the note Silence of the Lambs<\/a> by Susan Q. Stranahan, which discusses a case in Pennsylvania where a lawsuit for defamation against a newspaper who reported that one city councilman called the mayor and council president liars, queers and child molesters has been reinstituted by the PA Supreme Court, with the approval of the US Supreme Court. More coverage is in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times in an article called Justices Refuse to Shield Reports of False Charges<\/a> by David G. Savage.\n

I won’t give the whole story here, but in short the newspaper is going to have to defend itself for printing what one public figure said about another public figure, when it reported the fact of the accusation, calling it a slur and an insult, and seeking a response from the defamed party (a court has already ruled that the councilman defamed the mayor and council president). The issue, essentially, is whether a newspaper can be sued for transmitting defamation, even if it makes it clear that the defamation is, you know, false and defamatory. Now, the topic makes it difficult to avoid arguing by reductio ad absurdum<\/I>, thusly: Today House Democrats were up in arms, after the Minority Whip said ... something ... about Rep. Jones, but we can’t tell you what. Rep. Jones, in response, said that the Minority Whip could, no, well, responded in kind. No, we won’t tell you what kind. A White House spokesman said the two were, um, well, that’s not technically illegal in the District, but just to be on the safe side, back to you for weather and sports. Jim?\n

In fact, there does appear to be a pattern of people using news media (particularly television, of course) to spread defamatory lies. The corporate media are complicit in that, and there is some question in my mind whether there is a legitimate case to be made that they bear some liability for the defamation in question. It’s clear to me that the press acts, in part, as a filter, and that therefore they lend some credibility to whatever they let through that filter. It is irresponsible, and unethical, for a news producer to allow its product to be used as a conduit for lies. But should it be actionable? I don’t think so.\n

I think the solution would be far worse than the problem. Defamation is already such a tricky business that having to consult the lawyers before any story about one person criticizing another would be, I think, prohibitive. The producer would choose to prioritize less risky stories. The decisions would be made not about what (they believe) the public to be interested in, much less the public interest, but about what would avoid an expensive lawsuit.\n

That might not actually bother the megacorporate media, who are on the whole responsible for the practices I deplore anyway. But a local paper (are there still local papers?), or a local radio newscast, or even a smallish newspaper chain might well get skittish. I think the phrase here is “chilling effect”. The solution (vulnerability to such suits) would most likely have a chilling effect on, well, on the Daily Local News<\/a> of West Chester, PA. Which, as we all know, is where Dave Barry got his start, back before he wasn’t funny anymore.\n

The important point here, I think, is that there’s a difference between what is unethical and what is actionable. There should be such a difference. I do think that the press need to exercise judgment whether to pass along slander, and I think that they need to be very careful in how they do it. But I also think that what the press does is sufficiently important they should be protected even when screwing up, to a fairly high extent. Reckless disregard for the truth sounds about right.\n

The specifics of this case, about which I know only a trifle, seem to make it clear that when this goes to trial the newspaper will win. They didn’t report anything that wasn’t true; they reported what one public figure said about another. They also made it clear by context that it was name-calling rather than accusation. They could have put a big headline along the lines of Mayor a Child Molester? Councilman Speaks<\/b> but they didn’t. The point, as I understand it, isn’t that there’s a nonzero chance that they will have to shell out a few grand in damages, it’s that they will certainly have to shell out a few grand for attorney’s fees, and that those fees will be an ongoing added cost of doing business, for them and for other press outlets. Or, I suppose, there could arise an insurance industry to cover it, all the same doctors and lawyers, which would be just peachy, too.\n

chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek<\/I>,
-Vardibidian.\n<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The CJR Daily, née the Campaign Desk, does an excellent job (or so it seems to YHB) of examining the ways the press works and fails to work. They place stories in context, and they also remove them from camouflaging…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[201],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-navel-gazing"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2747"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2747\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17357,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2747\/revisions\/17357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}