Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
I took a communications law class in college, and the professor wanted us to learn about just one topic: libel. You commit libel when you publish a false statement. Sounds simple, but it can get complicated. For example, when it comes to broadcasting, slander and libel are the same thing. And libel can lead to defamation, the damaging of one’s reputation.
Recently, we saw Donald Trump sue ABC for defamation, and ABC agreed to a settlement even though the law would seem to favor ABC. Trump charged that George Stephanopoulos had incorrectly said he was found liable for rape. In fact, he was found liable for sexual assault. ABC will donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library to make the case go away. Every other journalism outlet might now have to decide if it will stand up to Trump.
See, a 1964 Supreme Court ruling gave ABC and every other journalism outlet broad protection when it comes to reporting on a public official. In New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, the court ruled that libel against a public official is committed only if there is “actual malice.” “Malice aforethought” is what my professor said. It’s very hard to prove.
So why did ABC cave? The most likely answer is economics. Lawyer fees in a long court battle can add up in a hurry. A lack of backbone would be the other reason.
Trump has already filed a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and has threatened to have the FCC take away NBC’s broadcasting license. He is waging war on the media. It’s about limiting their ability to hold him accountable.
And we are learning that not every media outlet is willing to take a case to the Supreme Court as The New York Times did.
I learned that firsthand early in my career. While working at a TV station in Iowa, I prepared a series of stories that used hidden cameras to show how 10 body shops agreed to perform insurance fraud in order to win approval for a car repair job.
The stories won the top prize for investigative reporting in Iowa that year, but they almost didn’t get on the air. That’s because the general manager of the station was worried about legal exposure. At a meeting called for him to preview the stories, he began by asking if we were currently facing any lawsuits. Then, after seeing the stories, he demanded that the video be altered so no identifying signs could be seen at any of the body shops. He also wanted the identities of body shop owners protected by blurring their faces.
This was not a libel case, and they were not public officials, but my point is this: Journalists are brave; media executives often are not.
For added reference, you can look to Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post, who killed an editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris in an apparent attempt to protect contracts between his rocket company and the federal government.
What I am saying is that when my college professor taught me there are broad protections when you report on a public official, he didn’t point out that you might need someone with a big wallet and a strong conviction to make them hold up.
Prepare to see more lawsuits and more media organizations that cower at the feet of Trump. Worse, media organizations might choose to avoid reporting sensitive stories in the first place to avoid a lawsuit.•
__________
Shella hosted WFYI’s “Indiana Week in Review” for 25 years and covered Indiana politics for WISH-TV for more than three decades. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
This opinion did not age well considering yesterday’s CNN defeat. Being brave and trying to defend the indefensible didn’t play well. How about just report the facts.