On the Media; Part 2; [1996-09-22--excerpt], Ruining Reputations

[Bill] I had been involved in proving a book on the Middle East was probably fraudulent - a book claimed to show that Palestinians by and large didn't exist. Now everybody we think of as Palestinian is really a descendant of some other type of Arab. Any event we won. It took a long time, those of us who on the one side finally won. Anthony Lewis wrote a column about in January '86. Then there was an article in Commentary still defending the book. I remember reading the article and thinking, I'm not going to respond to this; doesn't matter. But in '86, there was a letter published which cited my piece and referred to some examples I'd used in my text and said that the scholar I'd cited only made two of these examples, not the other two. The implication was I'd made them up. Now it's true the written text from that scholar didn't use those examples, but my footnote showed that I'd gotten them from a phone conversation with that very same scholar. I said these other examples come from a phone conversation. [Alex Jones talks over] Well, what [Bill] [inaudible] footnote [Alex Jones] What happened when you sought redress? [Bill] I got some woman; I couldn't tell you her name and didn't take notes in the conversation.

And she said, Well, Mr. So-and-So - I won't give you my name. I understand that you're upset, but we don't want to deal with this anymore. And that was basically it. And I remember thinking I'd just gotten out of law school and actually I was at a firm that did a little First Amendment work. I remember thinking this is not worth a libel suit, even though this is clearly reckless, because you can just look at the article and check the footnote. I mean, this is not really tough. And the particular scholar would take a phone call to confirm he did make those phone remarks. [Alex Jones] Well, let me ask you, you know, let me ask you, Mike Masterson, how would you advise someone like Bill who tries to make a complaint and gets nowhere? What do you think someone in that situation should do? [Mike Masterson] Need to go right to the top. You know, Randy was right earlier when he said that many times the callers are bumped over to the reporter who really doesn't want to deal with it. They're busy and they just don't want to have to defend themselves. The publisher and/or the editor and or both - a meeting with both of them, I think is the most significant thing you can do. And I mean, if you don't get any satisfaction there, then you know you're not going to get any satisfaction through just a normal request channel like that

without having to go to some legal action or even a letter. You know, we'll publish letters here that are critical of the newspaper. I believe in publishing those too. And, you know, perhaps a letter to the editor explaining it or asking, you know, explaining the mistake. [Alex Jones] Bill, thank you [inaudible] [Bill] I was willing to write a letter saying that and they weren't going to publish it because I would have been happy to say excuse me, but if you check footnote so-and-so. [Alex Jones] Yeah, [Bill] Because, I mean, I do. I write myself. I'm basically a writer now. I've only [inaudible] left law and I have no problem with writing a stinging piece that would show the guy is not a good scholar. In fact that would have been the most fun at all. I don't want money, but if I could cut the guy's legs off, I'd be very happy. [Alex Jones] Well, Randy Bezanson, are letters to the editor I mean, are news organizations loathe to let critical letters in without responding to them, without sort of, you know, even if it is a critical one, then tacking on their sort of explanation at the bottom? [Randy Bezanson] No, in fact, it's very common practice to have letters to the editor in - well - Commentary

I would think so as an example - or other magazines. With newspapers, Oftentimes the newspaper will offer the complainant the opportunity to write a letter, but those are usually inadequate offers because the letter is self-serving. If we can imagine, Mr. ?Kudi?, if I recall his name, writing a letter defending himself, saying, no, I'm not a crook, [Alex Jones] It doesn't have the authority. [Randy Bezanson] It certainly doesn't have the authority. But an academic kind of dispute like the one we're now talking about, I think is more well adapted to that. [Alex Jones] Bill, thank you for your call, Drew. In Worcester, Massachusetts, You're on the air. [Drew] Yes. I just wanted to give, I guess, just an individual perspective. If there's a libel against an individual, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect or maybe not expect, but require the paper to run a retraction in like kind? In other words, if there's a front page article that is determined by a court to be

false, isn't it reasonable to print a first page retraction of that falsehood? [Alex Jones] Well, I remember a few years ago The New York Times ran a front page correction to a front page story. And I remember it, I saw it and I was stupefied by it. I don't think it's ever happened since. Randy Bezanson, is that idea of correcting it in the same kind of, you know - same size type in the same location as the error was made - Is that something that you've seen very much of? [Randy Bezanson] No, you don't see it very much and if you - I won't get into them - but if you get into particular cases, you get some pretty difficult choices about - you know - where do you put it and then what size type and do you reach the same audience; but newspapers have begun being more forthcoming in correcting, even apologizing, and I think that's to be commended. The Supreme Court of the United States has said, however, that a newspaper may not

constitutionally be legally required to do that. [Mike Masterson] You know, gentlemen, let me add - this is Mike - I've always tried to do that, and I've always tried to, depending on the significance of the error, certainly to run it in a similar position to where the mistake originally occurred. And we have a term in the business called "skin backs" for those kind of stories and when we have to do a skin back that is painful. But I've always found that by doing that, you really haven't damaged anything. All you've done is establish credibility that you're willing to do that, to acknowledge a mistake and to say in the same position that you've made the error, you know, we did blunder here. [Alex Jones] The thing is, though, that at a newspaper, the reporter, as you have both said, you know, has a very definite stake and interest in not seeing that kind of thing done because they feel like they're being discredited and their work is being judged, you know, wrong and bad. And so they do everything they can to prevent something like that.

How do you really overcome that, that attitude, that mindset in a newsroom? Mike? [Mike Masterson] I just deal with the truth. I ask them, is this true or untrue? Is what they're claiming true? Did you err? Yes, I did. Well, then this newspaper published your mistake. [Alex Jones] If you can get a flat, "Yes, I did" out of most reporters, if you asked them if they'd made an error, unless it's spelling somebody's name, you're a very good interrogator and you got very honest reporters. [Randy Bezanson] Especially in a tough investigative piece. [Alex Jones] I agree. I want to ask you, our listeners, you know, how do you feel about this, this trade off of libel laws protecting aggressive reporting, but also making it more difficult for people who have been wronged to get a kind of genuine and heartfelt, sincere apology and an admission of error from news organizations? I mean, how should this thing be handled? Have you had your own experiences with the media in this? Our number is 1-800-343-3342. That's 1-800-343-3342. Robert in Bloomfield, New Jersey, you're on the air. [Robert] Hi. I just think the Sullivan versus Times precedence is

kind of unfortunate. I'm really for the Second Amendment - or - First Amendment, excuse me and I think that newspapers should be able to publish whatever they want without prior restraint, as long as they're willing to take responsibility for it. And if the standard of proof or whatever in a libel case is that both, it has to be wrong and they have to show malice. I think that that's a higher standard than we normally experience in everyday life. If a newspaper actually damages somebody's reputation, they have to take responsibility for that even if there wasn't malice. And if there was malice, I think punitive damages should be awarded. [Alex Jones] Well, I guess, as I say, the question is where where is the balance? On the one hand, if you create a situation that makes such a great danger of doing aggressive reporting, a kind of responsibility of the kind you're talking about, are you going to be faced with a lot of news organizations that are going to simply rule that there's not going to be any kind of controversial or aggressive or critical reporting?

[Robert] No, no. Just that when it's kind of questionable like that, they have to weigh the consequences and say, is it worth it to us to take this risk? [Alex Jones] Well, Randy Bezanson, what do you think? [Randy Bezanson] Well, I think there's a point to what the caller says, in this sense: If we didn't have all these money damages in these cases and these are multimillion dollar lawsuits, this is not ten thousand dollars or something like that, then I think a solution that said, you know, if you were wrong, if it's turned out that you were wrong and you correct it, we'll have the end of it. I think that solution might work. The problem here is that these lawsuits involve tremendous amounts of money and the concern about liability at that level would dampen what newspapers do. Let me just give you an analogy with doctors. We don't hold doctors liable every time they make a mistake in an operation or an operation doesn't work out. We say in the legal system that the doctor will be liable only if the doctor's negligent. That is to say, if he was not only wrong, but he shouldn't have been wrong.

He should have known better. We do that because we want [inaudiable]. We don't want to discourage doctors from doing operations, for example. [Alex Jones] Good point. [Robert] Can we apply that same standard to newspapers? [Randy Bezanson] We do. And that's what the malice test is doing. It's saying... [Robert] No. There's a difference between malice and negligence. [Randy Bezanson] Oh. Well, the negligence standard does apply to most newspaper stories, those that don't involve public figures or public officials. The malice test - negligence applies to those. The malice test only applies to public figures. [Robert talking over Randy Bezanson] In other words, the newspapers are going to lose if there was negligence, but if there wasn't malice; I thought that that was different than the Times versus Sullivan. [Randy Bezanson] Right. But the Times versus Sullivan test only applies to public officials or public figures, not to private parties. [Robert] OK [Alex Jones] It's a difficult thing to keep clear in your mind, I know. It's a tricky one. Let me ask you to put the Jewell case now on the front burner. Bob in Nutley, New Jersey. [Bob] Yes, hi. Listen to your show this afternoon here and spoke to your producer,

I believe it was. My comment is in regards to the Richard Jewell situation, the Atlanta bombing suspect at the Olympics, and it seems that this man's life was sort of taken, taken out and aired for the public and beyond that, we haven't really heard anything as to what the FBI or whatever other investigation that's surrounding his life. [Alex Jones] Well, you know, it's interesting tonight I read an article in today's New York Times that 60 Minutes is going to do a segment on the Jewell case tonight, and it's going to be on this very issue, at least that's my understanding. [Robert] Wow! [Alex Jones] Mike Masterson, as an editor, how do you feel about the way the Atlanta papers covered the Jewell case? Because they were the ones who really would, you know, put Mr. Jewell out there and then the rest of the press followed suit. [Mike Masterson] Yeah, I thought at the time I wondered if someone was being used there at the Constitution. I have friends at that paper and I wondered if they were being led astray.

And I couldn't help but remember the movie Absence of Malice where the U.S. Attorney left some stuff on the desk for the reporter to find and therefore put pressure on one particular suspect, a public pressure. And that's exactly what happened here. I mean, it came out of a federal office and then it ended up putting enormous pressure on this one person. And then nothing happened. Without knowing all the facts, I'd hate to pass judgment. [Alex Jones] Let me ask you, Randy Bezanson from your perspective in the law school and as a student of these sort of thing(s), what do you think? [Randy Bezanson] Well, I think that what I know about the Jewell case, from a legal point of view, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of likely liability because the information that's been published has come from official sources and has almost always been qualified by that claim that he's a suspect, which is apparently true. [Alex Jones] What about that moral hook, though, that Mike Masterson responded to in Arkansas? [Randy Bezanson] Right. I think the moral hook is an important hook.

I think it's one that we can't legally enforce, but that newspapers need to enforce upon themselves. And I think Mike is right. I think newspaper and you know the business, Alex, in a way I don't and Mike does too. A newspaper always has to be worried that what comes to it in an investigative or a controversial piece is serving someone else's interest. The myth of the newspaper reporter being sent by the editor out to ferret out the information and doing it single handedly is probably the exception to the rule, maybe, maybe less than that. Usually sources have some incentive, some stake in providing information to a newspaper reporter. The toughest part of the reporter's job and I wouldn't want to be one, is trying to separate that out and trying to figure out what's really true here and what is instead serving the interests of this source. And the Jewell case may be a good example.

[Alex Jones] Bob, thank you for your call. It's an interesting topic. It's an interesting aspect of what we're talking about, another dimension of it. Our number is 1-800-343-3342 [Mike Masterson talking over Alex Jones] Mike. [Alex Jones] Yes, Mike. [Mike Masterson] I just want to comment on what Randy had to say. [Alex Jones] Yeah. [Mike Masterson] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that this... [Alex Jones] Listen, we're going to have to take a break. We'll get you when you come back. This is On The Media from National Public Radio. [musical interlude] [Alex Jones] I'm Alex Jones. We're back with On The Media talking about what happens when the media ruins someone's reputation, ruin it wrongly. We're talking with Randy Bezanson, Professor at the University of Iowa College of Law,

and Mike Masterson, Executive Editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mike Masterson, you were talking you had a point to make right before the break. [Mike Masterson] Just about the jewel case in Atlanta. As I recall, the authorities never officially called him a suspect. I don't know that they ever labeled him a suspect. The media made him a suspect, certainly the key suspect. But I think they were pretty cagey in the way they worded that. And we don't consider him a suspect at this time, although we are looking at him. [Alex Jones] Yeah, I know. I know it was. It was one of those situations where it seems pretty apparent to me that the investigative groups were using the media to try to put pressure on this guy to crack. [Mike Masterson] Exactly. [Alex Jones] And they were basically [Mike Masterson] As an editor, I would have called those reporters over and said, look, you know, we may be being used here. Before we call this guy a suspect - if they're not willing to do it - let's make sure we're right. [Alex Jones] Yeah, I know what you mean. Let me ask you let me ask Randy and Mike to briefly just weigh in on another subject.

Just recently - an election in Minneapolis - The Minneapolis Star and Tribune ran the wrong picture of a guy on Election Day under the headline "Charity Fraud." Now, the man whose picture appeared in connection with that story was a candidate in the election. It was a pure mistake. It was not a calculated one. I don't think anybody thinks that the Minneapolis Star and Tribune intended to do it. They have apologized for it. But the guy lost the election. And the Governor of Minnesota is now saying that the paper should pay for another election and that the guy should be, there should be a new election because of what happened. Randy Bezanson, how do you how do you see that one falling? [Randy Bezanson] Well, I think the Star and Tribune's to be congratulated for apologizing, admitting its mistake openly and right away. I don't think you can reasonably hold it responsible for paying for a new election. One, there's no way of knowing for sure whether this as opposed to something else might have affected the election. And secondly, if newspapers are responsible for every possible consequence of what they say, we won't have any newspapers around

anymore because they're going to be paying for all kinds of things. [Alex Jones] Mike Masterson? [Mike Masterson] I agree with Randy - I think on every point there - I would amplify this one point. If you get the wrong picture published and you apologize for that, and it's made clear to everybody, that this was a wrong picture and it was a mistake, then, you know, you should apologize for that. I think it's great they did that, but they certainly should have. [Alex Jones] Richard in Queens, New York, you're on the air. [Richard] Hi, Alex. [Alex Jones] Hi there. [Richard] OK, I want to say that I'm on both sides of this issue because I both publish a small paper and I've had a problem with a larger paper that picked up on a situation that involved my paper. And I practice a very rough and tumble kind of journalism. And I heartily support all the protections under Times and Sullivan and all the cultural protections of the newspapers. And I wouldn't want to see any of them changed. But I was really surprised that when I tried to deal with a very large and reputable newspaper, how unprofessional they behaved about the complaint that I had, which was a very factual

complaint, that they had simply misreported what I had printed. And that created a very bad impression on their readers. And I went through the Editor, the President. I sent them things and they lost them and they didn't respond to them. And. [Alex Jones] Well, let me ask Randy Bezanson, Is it is the bigger the paper, the bigger the reputation, the harder it is or the easier it is to get justice? [Randy Bezanson] Well, probably the bigger the harder just because it's a larger bureaucratic organization of the culture of kind of hard hitting, tough minded journalism is probably more set. And it's not as close to the communities, so maybe it doesn't feel it has to be as responsive. [Alex Jones] I think that one thing that is really true of big newspapers and I worked at big ones and small ones is that when you work at a small newspaper, you have to deal with the people that you've been writing about every day. And it makes you it puts you in a different set of, you know, a different mindset than it does when you're so insulated as you are when you work at a newspaper like The New York Times.

It really is. [Richard] Can I add one thing? [Alex Jones] Yes, sure. [Richard] OK, I was surprised that the first thing I did, the first thing I asked for when I had a problem with the paper, I asked to speak to the Ombudsman and they informed me we have no Ombudsman. So even if it's a big paper, you know, they should - I know that there are some papers that I think have Ombudsmen like the The Washington Post with the Janet Cooke. I think the Ombudsman was the one who handled that. [Alex Jones] Bill Green was his name. Great man. [Richard] Maybe that that's what they need if they are so big. [Alex Jones] Well, let me ask you, Randy Bezanson, is the ombudsman role something that is growing or is it kind of shrinking now? [Randy Bezanson] I think, Alex, it's shrinking now. It grew for a while, became fairly popular, was a good idea. One of the problems was the ombudspeople really had no authority and if they could not find their way through the bureaucracy to get some kind of result or change, all they could do was publish about it in a column, and I think in the end, that left a lot of people thinking that the office and the institution of an ombudsman really wasn't accomplishing very much. [Alex Jones] Richard, thank you for your call. Appreciate it.

Mike Masterson, we're running out of time here, but I want to ask you a question that I didn't ask you earlier, and that was what was the response to your mea culpa by the community and by Dan Comb's? Dan ?Kutya? I mean. [Mike Masterson] It was very positive in the community. I wasn't certain what it would be. I just felt it was the right thing to do, but the community has responded extremely favorably, and I think that should be encouraging to other editors. I think they should realize that being honest and being straightforward about their mistakes is only going to be a plus for them. You know, I cannot in good conscience ask my reporters to go out and tell the truth aggressively here about the activities of other people, if they're not ready, if we're not ready. [Alex Jones] Well, one thing we didn't really plumb, and that is the fact that the paper in Fayetteville that you work for that made this apology is now under different ownership, not just a different executive, you know. The publisher of the old ownership got fired for what he did. [Mike Masterson] That's right. [Alex Jones] The newspaper continued to defend what he'd done. This apology came from a new bunch. Now [Mike Masterson] From a new bunch, but we were still facing the suit.

I mean, it was still before the Supreme Court when I came home, and it was not out of litigation completely when I got back. [Alex Jones] Well, I want to say again, I think that what you did was a terrific thing and a great example for all of us. I want to thank Randy Bezanson, Professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, and Mike Masterson, Executive Editor, Northwest Arkansas Times. Terrific job. The producer for On The Media is Judith Hepburn Blank with Associate Producer Jennifer Nix and Assistant Producer Kavita Menon. Production Assistant Devora ?Clar?. Our Technical Director is George Edwards with Audio Engineer George Wellington. I'm Alex Jones. If you have questions or comments about On The Media, call 1-800-343-3342 Funding for On the Media is provided by the John S.

and James L. Knight Foundation, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the Edith and Henry Everett Foundation, the WNYC Foundation and National Public Radio. This program is a production of WNYC New York Public Radio in association with the Poynter Institute for Media Studies at St. Petersburg, Florida. This is NPR National Public Radio.