Talking with JinC Regulars and Reader/Commenters – Aug. 12, 2006

New Readers’ Note: This is a post in the old web log tradition of notes and “thinking our loud” with others who know what you’re about.

I do JinC Regulars posts often. Lately I’ve included reader/commenters in the Regulars posts because the number of commenters has grown and, while I read every comment, I can no longer get back to each individual.

In the Regulars posts I try to let reader/commenters know I’m “paying attention.” An example of that is the main item in the post below.

John
___________________________________________

Folks,

For weeks many commenters have been asking questions such as: “Doesn’t the N&O have some liability for what it’s done in the Duke lacrosse case?” and “The N&O just can’t publish the “vigilante” poster and then just walk away from it, can it?”

I’ve not answered those questions. But I haven’t ignored them, either.

I’ve been talking to attorneys who are expert in First Amendment and libel law as they apply to newspapers. I’ve also talked about those same matters with journalists I respect.

Remember I’m not an attorney and I don’t consider myself a journalist.

Now a few thoughts re: the liability questions

Bottom line: In America it’s awfully hard to hold newspapers or other MSM news organization responsible for actions that in other democracies, the United Kingdom for instance, would be libelous and result in severe penalties.

But awfully hard and nearly impossible doesn’t mean impossible.

I’ve been told by people who are usually right about things that a number of people who love those Duke students who were slimed, endangered and, in my opinion, libeled by the N&O already have attorneys and researchers looking at everything the N&O did to twist what should have been a fair, thourgh police investigation into a witch hunt

What needs to be done to make a libel charge against a newspaper stick?

Everyone kept bringing up the same phrase “deliberate maliciousness.” It’s not enough that a newspaper prints something false; or prints a lot about someone that’s false; on keeps printing false or biased stories about a group. To sustain a libel charge you have to prove the newspaper deliberately set out with malicious intent to harm (libel).

You also have to prove that what the newspaper did, in fact, harmed the person or group. If no one takes what a newspaper says seriously, no harm is done, it can be argued.

I’ll be saying more about the N&O and the question of libel in a few days. This is a start.

I hope some of you who are journalists or attorneys comment as well as the rest of you.

BTW – On the matter of deliberateness, you’ll notice the word “deliberate” has recently been appearing more often in some of my N&O posts. Part of the reason for that is journalists I’ve talked with have made me aware of just how deliberate were some of the terrible things the N&O did.

Example: The Mar. 24 “broke the case” story seven times used “victim” or the possessive “victim’s” with no conditional qualifier. Two reporters are bylined on the story. So you might say, “Wow, they must have done that deliberately.”

But wait. There are editors who are supposed to catch errors and decide if what’s said in an article is as accurate as possible; is consistent with the papers news reporting standards; and conforms to those journalism ethics N&O exec editor for news Melanie Sill and public editor Ted Vaden are always talking about.

(Folks, I’m traveling now and must end this right now.

To be continued very soon, tonight I hope, assuming Muslim extremists don’t interrupt my travel plans.

John