Supreme Court Won't Rule on 'Neutral Reporting Privilege'

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus29mar29,0,5819362,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.

Instead, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."

The case turned on whether the First Amendment's protection for the freedom of the press includes a "neutral reporting privilege." Most judges around the nation have said the media do not enjoy this privilege.

<snip>

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the newspaper said news organizations should be allowed to report what public figures say, regardless of whether it is true or false. Otherwise, they said, for example, the media could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, since Kerry's supporters said the charges were false.

[Charlie Brown]

1. What a bad day for freedom of speech

A newspaper is libel simply for stating the facts? What are we coming to?

[AuntiBush]

2. Sadly, We're already there.

Where does it end? Sick. Disgusting. Vile!

[LoganW]

5. What, exactly, are you talking about?

"for accurately reporting a politician's *false charges* against a rival."

Are you aware that half of the republicans talking points the media ran during the last election would have been grounds to sue them under this logic?

Or do you think CNN/FOX & swift boat vets for truth should get a pass? How exactly is prohibiting propaganda that helps fascists in to power a "bad day for freedom of speech"?

[Charlie Brown]

7. The newspaper was simply reporting what happened

The councilman made the accusations. It is not the newspaper's obligation to investigate the truth of the claims. Freedom of the Press. Do you think the pen should be restricted simply b/c you don't like the news you read?

What about DU? They cover numerous scandals in their columns before the whole story has come out. Would you agree with a lawsuit against our host site?

Should Rove and Bush be able to sue all the news outlets who covered the CBS/Rather story as it developed?

[LoganW]

10. "It is not the newspaper's obligation to investigate the truth"

And wouldn't you say that's the problem with the media today?

"Do you think the pen should be restricted simply b/c you don't like the news you read?"

If I'm reading propaganda, yes. The person who is harmed by the lies should be able to take legal action.

"What about DU? They cover numerous scandals in their columns before the whole story has come out. Would you agree with a lawsuit against our host site?"

Really? Has DU done anything on the level of swift boat vets for truth? I must have missed it.

"Should Rove and Bush be able to sue all the news outlets who covered the CBS/Rather story as it developed?"

Didn't they do worse than that? I think it's time we get some tools to counter rove's media.

[Charlie Brown]

11. What happens when the powers that be decide that DU is "propaganda"

When it comes to politics, truth is in the eye of the beholder. It would not be difficult for freepers or right-wingers to file a lawsuit against DU on the grounds of "misrepresentation" (or vice-versa). These kind of tactics are a ridiculous side-show to objective reporting and the presentation of facts. There's always going to be right-wing news organizations like National Review and left-wing sources like The Progressive, etc.

Instead of trying to limit what newspapers can report, why not concentrate on laying out the facts as impartially as possible, allowing the observer to see clearly what is occurring in the country. There's no reason to stoop to the level of the Swift Votes because of a grudge.

The first amendment should not be curtailed b/c some organizations abuse it. If progressives support tactics like this, we will be called hypocrites when we champion the first amendment on religious and social issues.

[sandnsea]

13. DU isn't a news organization, for starters

And if news organizations laid out the facts, without the slanderous spin, then they wouldn't be in trouble. Repeating false claims thrown out by a political campaign isn't reporting and that's what happened in the case. Two opponents were called gay pedophiles, or something along those lines. That's printing slander, no matter how you dress it up.

[SemperEadem]

31. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

" It is not the newspaper's obligation to investigate the truth of the claims."

Whre the hell did you come up with that one? It certainly IS the newspaper's obligation to check the facts before taking the story to press/air.

Clearly, you don't work in the media, nor have you taken any media courses with regards to communications law. This is Mass Com 101, s0n.

[Orrex]

37. Strictly speaking,

if the newspaper presents a quote as it was spoken, then that is reporting the truth. And they can cover themselves by saying "look, we examined the tape of what he said, and we’ve confirmed that we reported it truthfully.” It's the difference between precision and accuracy.

As long as the newspaper identifies the quote as a quote, rather than as a fact, they’re technically in the clear. Obviously this kind of reporting amounts to regurgitation as opposed to reporting, but it’s not technically untrue insofar as the quote is accurate, even if the quoted statement lacks precision.

In my view, the media should make a serious effort to rebut bogus or misleading claims, but that would require actual journalists and actual research, rather than the vomit vendors that currently populate the fourth column.

And, anyway, why does this ruling surprise anyone? Didn’t FAUX win a ruling within the past year freeing them to present known lies as news? This current ruling is just an interpolation of that previous one.

[SemperEadem]

42. not buying it

'And they can cover themselves by saying "look, we examined the tape of what he said, and we’ve confirmed that we reported it truthfully.”


Apparently, the SCOTUS said they cannot. Not unless they are negligent and derelict in their duty. They didn't confirm if what was being said was the truth--they printed it without corroborating sources. THAT is why the SCOTUS climbed in their asses.

What they should do and could do is not the issue; the issue is what they did/didn't do. They printed a libelous story and got whacked for it like they should have. They cannot hide behind the ambiguous issue of "neutral reporting"--they don't have that luxury, like they thought they did.

[Newsjock]

3. If journalists forgo their principles of journalism ...

... why should we be surprised when the courts do likewise?

[Kagemusha]

4. Since Kerry's supporters SAID they were false?

That's propaganda going way too far in the other direction. The standard is truth and facts. Just because someone says it does not make it true. Duh. But the media wants to have the Supreme Court say that actually, that is so? ... Because the SC says so?

Silly.

[w4rma]

9. Careful. This article is probably spinning on that point.

The statement is missing information that is important to it's context. I expect that information has to do with the total lack of evidence that the Swift Boat people had in their favor and the plethora of evidence against the Swift Boat people.

[Kimber Scott]

6. Good. They should not be allowed to spread propaganda, then say

they were just repeating what so and so said. This is what's wrong with our "news" now. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week they sit in their ivory towers and say, "So and so said so and so did not earn his medals." "So and so said so and so smoked pot." "So and so called so and so a baby killer." Etc., etc. etc., over and over and over and they rarely check the validity of the claims. It's a classic Rovian smear tactic to put something out there to have it repeated over and over again until people believe it, whether it's true, or not. People forget the "So and so said" part and just internalize the lie.

[Charlie Brown]

8. does this apply to CBS/Rather as well?

"It's a classic Rovian smear tactic to put something out there to have it repeated over and over again until people believe it, whether it's true, or not. People forget the "So and so said" part and just internalize the lie."

It sounds like this could equally be applied to the Rather story.
Would you agree with a lawsuit against DU for propagating the allegations behind that story?

Freedom of the press is a powerful component of this nation. I don't like seeing it bargained away simply because some people don't like the news they read.

[sandnsea]

12. That story was TRUE

The secretary said the facts in the memo were true, she just didn't remember typing the memo.

I think the ruling is good. The newspaper ought to at least have to do their own investigation into political claims and report the facts if they're going to report the claims. That removes the threat of libel.

[Kimber Scott]

41. We are not a news organization. There is a difference between

opining and reporting. Reporters should not proliferate rumor in the way Internet discussion boards do. They should be held to a higher standard. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The Dan Rather story was not a "he said" story, it was a "here are some documents" story. Whether the documents are fakes has yet to be proven, but again, the "so and so said" line took precedence over the evidence. "So and so said the documents are fake and So and so said they are not." When the investigations were completed confirming the validity of the documents could not be confirmed the damage had already been done by the "So and so said" journalists.

I think you've made my point.

[blogslut]

14. that link

leads to this story:

"Justices May Sidestep Death Row Decision
A World Court ruling and a surprise order by Bush complicate the cases of 51 Mexican nationals sentenced to die in several states.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

March 29, 2005..."

[blogslut]

15. found a story :)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15036

[Moderator]

16. kick to combine

[papau]

17. Justices Refuse to Shield Reports of False Charges (suing he said lies)

now about those SBVfT....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-decline29mar29,1,4830421.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

THE NATION
Justices Refuse to Shield Reports of False Charges
The Supreme Court lets stand a ruling that a newspaper's truthful coverage isn't protected.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

March 29, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.

Instead, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."

The case turned on whether the 1st Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press includes a "neutral reporting privilege." Most judges around the nation have said the press does not enjoy this privilege.

Lawyers for more than two dozen of the nation's largest press organizations, including Tribune Co., which publishes the Los Angeles Times, had urged the court to take up the Pennsylvania case and to rule that truthful news reports on public figures deserved to be shielded.

They said politicians have been hurling false and damaging charges at their rivals throughout American history. The press cannot do its duty to inform the public if it is not free to report what public figures say, they argued.

But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the press has never "enjoyed a blanket immunity" from being sued over stories that print falsehoods that damage a person's reputation. The law "has placed a burden (albeit a minimal one) on the media to refrain from publishing reports that they know to be false," the Pennsylvania court said.<snip>

[merh]

18. Can you provide a link that I can copy and use in bugmenot

to get this story? Thank you.

[papau]

24. link to LATimes works for me and is only one I have

it may require a "registration"

but that can be truth or lies as to personal info - and in any case is innocent of much evil.

[UpInArms]

19. actually, this might be a very good thing

as the "news" media thinks that its only job is to endlessly repeat the lies without ever reporting the truth along side of the lies -

example:

then: *Co says Iraq has WMDs - press remains silent

now: *Co says _____________(fill in blank)has WMDs - press must report that no such evidence exists to support the lie

Should I be hopeful that this will happen??

[seventythree]

20. Maybe this is good

newspapers will think twice before printing swill, just because someone says it. On the other hand, they might think twice before printing the truth, if they have not checked something out. In the above case, had the guy just said "liars" -- it probably would have flown, as every pol can get caught in a lie :) It's a tough call - in a right wing media environment, maybe it's the best call for now. Unfortunately, laws shouldn't be made for "now", but for the future, too.

[markbark]

21. Hang on a bit....

The Local newspaper prints a TRUTHFUL account of one Mr. William T. Glenn referring to his Mayor and Councilman as "liars" and "a bunch of draft dodgers" and they then sue the NEWSPAPER along w/ the cretin who uttered these words?

Yet another chink in the armour of the 1st Amendment.
When did we step through the lookng glass?

--MAB

[UpInArms]

22. how many times did the snews muddia play the Swift Boat lies

over and over - citing that it was "news"?

from the link:

In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for the paper said news organizations should be allowed to report what public figures say, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false.

[Brooklyn Michael]

23. Another example...

Forgive me for not having their names here, but recently a woman who is an authority on the Holocaust was going to be on CNN to plug her book, but to be "fair and balanced", CNN decided to share her time with a guy who has been saying for years that the Holocaust never happened....

If the MSM is forced to stop giving out-and-out lies the same weight as the truth, and start actually...I don't know...doing a little RESEARCH....I don't see this as a bad thing.

[UpInArms]

27. another thought

is that it would possibly rein in the "opinion news" that is muddying the waters.

[Selteri]

26. especialy after the chaerges had been proven false

So let's sue them... let's start sueing everytone who does these things and then ythey'll use that as a reason for tort reform again... vicious cycle.

[papau]

25. If Newspaper "knowingly" or should know that it was a lie - yes they

can be sued.

[Toots]

28. What does the ACLU say about this?

I find this a bit frightening. another tool of the Right-wing to use against Liberals.

[napi21]

29. Wait a minute everybody! Why are you disagreeing with this ruling?

It said a shield doesn't exist around news organizations, and they can be sued for liable. Why do you think that's wrong?

To me this sounds like all depends on HOW the report is phrased. They can always say "so ands so said..." with no repercussions, but if they present the statements in the report as truth or fact, in their capacity as a news organization, they can be sued for liable.

[UpInArms]

30. agreed

that is exactly what FAUX does:

report: many have said blah blah blah blah

report: many agree blah blah blah blah

here's another one that has been bothering me:

the news spews the WH spin as "news" and "fact" without ever countering with any reporting or investigation into what are the actual facts

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7544

excerpt:

This case has been written off by US officials as a “horrific accident” that occurred on what we are told is “the most dangerous road in Iraq,” where insurgents are constantly waiting in the bushes to attack. The Pentagon further contends that the Italians failed to slow down at a checkpoint and only after repeated attempts to stop the car did soldiers fire on the Italians. The problem is, according to Sgrena, this shooting didn’t happen on that road. What’s more, Sgrena says that there was no US checkpoint for which to slow down.

“This is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road,” Klein says. “I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all.”

According to Klein, when Calipari was killed and Sgrena wounded, they were on a secured road that can only be accessed through the heavily-fortified Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for top foreign embassy and US officials. “It's a completely separate road, actually a Saddam-era road, it would seem, that allowed his vehicles to pass directly from the airport to his palace,” says Klein. “And now that is the secured route between the U.S. military base at the airport and the U.S. controlled Green Zone and the U.S. embassy.”

"It was a VIP road, for embassy people, not for normal people,” Sgrena told Klein. “I was only able to be on that road because I was with people from the Italian embassy."

...more...

what is being "reported" is merely what the WH allows to be reported in the snews media - without any clarification or follow-up.

This "story" has now been placed in the "old news" bin and no one ever hears of anything more :(

[enki23]

32. "some people say..."

there'a a reason for this decision.

[warrens]

33. I was reading that this morning. I think what the SC is saying...

Is that the paper will probably win the suit, and pretty easily. They reported the slurs as slurs, not as fact. If they had, for instance, interviewed that nutcase and published the interview as a serious piece, they would lose and would deserve to lose. It would be like printing the Swift Boat crap without investigating at all or including Kerry's comments.

Newspapers should not be protected wholesale when publishing crap they know is crap.

The defense the National Enquirer uses is to say, "we didn't say that, we quoted someone saying that." Therefore, they maintain, they can say anything they want about anybody by getting a third party to say it for them. That is reprehensible.

In this case, the paper did nothing wrong, and would almost certainly win in court.

[Pinboy]

34. The status quo is unchanged under the ruling

It was the lower court (PA Superior Court) that introduced a change by granting a "neutral reportage" privilege instead of relying on the well-established "actual malice" standard.

The PA Supreme Court reversed and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, so there is nothing new here.

[Pinboy]

38. Correction

It was the trial court that granted the "neutral reportage" privilege.
The Superior Court reversed, and its ruling was affirmed by the actions of both the PA and U.S. Supreme Couirts.

[Robbien]

39. Which means journalists who repeat charges someone says

without checking and reporting on the validity of the charges is liable for damages. Right?

[Pinboy]

40. Plaintiffs must prove press defendants knew the statements . . .

were false or acted with reckess disregard of whether or not they were false, under the "actual malice" standard. So, yes, if they meet that burden they will prevail.

Note that in the original trial, the issue of truth or falsity and what the press defendants knew was not considered. The judge specifically excluded those issues as irrelevant under the broader press privelege he granted. Since he was found in error, the issues he excluded will be considered in a new trial.

[Robbien]

35. High court rejects defamation appeal(media to investigate before printing)

Without comment, justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in favor of two Parkesburg, Pa., officials who sued over a 1995 article in the Daily Local News in West Chester. As a result, journalists will need to scrutinize public statements more closely for truth or face potential liability.

The article described borough Councilman William T. Glenn Sr. as "strongly implying" that Council President James B. Norton 3d and Mayor Alan M. Wolfe were "queers and child molesters," according to the state ruling. The article said Norton and Wolfe denied the claim and called the comments "bizarre" and "sad."

A jury ordered Glenn to pay the two men $17,500 in damages for defamation but found that reporter Tom Kennedy, then-editor William Caufield, and newspaper owner Troy Publishing Co. were not liable, partly because of the so-called neutral reportage privilege. That privilege lets the media convey a reputable public figure's defamatory comment as long as it is reported neutrally and accurately.

The Pennsylvania top court disagreed, ruling that no such privilege exists under the U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions. It ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard that asks whether the defamatory statements were published with reckless disregard for the truth.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/11253488.htm

[Demit]

36. Seems to me that the newpaper did not use the Councilman's actual words

but characterized whatever he said as "implying" something, which isn't exactly straight reportage. If they had just reported what he said, that would be neutral and accurate.

That said, it's a big problem these days, public officials hoping the media will just report what they've said no matter how preposterous, not bothering to look into whether it's factual or not. But I'm not clear if this is a case of that or not. It's a little confusing, from just this one account of the case.