JAYSON BLAIR REDUX: Can the 'Times' Be Sued? (for journalistic malpractice?)

VILLAGE VOICE ^ | 9/10-16 edition | CYNTHIA COTTS

[Liz]

Should The New York Times have to pay damages to readers who were duped by its decision to publish the fraudulent work of Jayson Blair? So say Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards, two lawyers who teach in the College of Communications at Pennsylvania State University, in an article that will appear in the fall 2003 edition of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal.

The article introduces the novel legal theory of "journalistic malpractice" whereby, in the Times' case, "the continued publication of Blair's stories, despite the serious doubt about his work entertained and expressed by his direct supervisors, points to reckless disregard for the truth by key personnel at the newspaper."

Given Blair's long trail of factual errors, the article argues, his editors either knew or should have known that he was "a frequent and deliberate liar." This raises some interesting questions: if a reporter is not meticulously accurate, does it follow that he might be stealing material and making things up? Did Blair's editors exercise "reasonable care" to prevent this from happening?

Author Calvert imagines a world in which media companies would be held legally accountable for telling the truth, and the Times could be forced to pay for every one of Blair's lies. As it is, he says, the journalism profession lacks meaningful oversight, and the Times is free to "fire its editors, issue this massive mea culpa, hire an ombudsman, and go on its way. We would say that that fault on Blair should be imputed back up the chain of editors and all the way to the top."

While admitting that it might be hard to prove in court that Times readers were damaged, Calvert defends his theory with this easy analogy: "If you owned the school bus company and you knew one of your drivers had a bad driving record, would you allow the person to continue to drive the bus? Blair was an accident waiting to happen."

A spokesperson for the Times declined to comment.

[Liz]

pingo

[vpintheak]

Sounds good to me. If a judge has said that victems families of the 9/11 terrorists attacks can sue the airlines and the Port Authority then this surely can be done.

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

---

This is the nascent Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this will likely become a high-volume list.
Also feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of the ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Tamzee]

I do think they should be held responsible for knowingly allowing falsehoods to be printed as news.

Additionally, maybe the subscribers should be reimbursed something. They forked over money in good faith to buy factual information... and did not get it.

[martin_fierro]

Author Calvert imagines a world in which media companies would be held legally accountable for telling the truth, and the Times could be forced to pay for every one of Blair's lies.

Well, NYT v. Sullivan (1964) laid out the basic standard by which a newspaper can be found civilly liable for defamation ("Actual Malice" = publication with 1. knowledge of the falsehood, or 2. reckless disregard for the truth).

Calvert's proposal would expand a newspaper's liability far beyond just those defamaed -- to the paper's general circulation.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but do think that a higher standard than simple negligence -- maybe Actual Malice -- should apply.

[Liz]

I do think (the NYT) should be held responsible for knowingly allowing falsehoods to be printed as news.

Knowingly allowing falsehoods? That's putting it mildly.

The NYT claims it owns the global franchise for accurate news reporting. The aura of self-righteousness permeates every page.

To have allowed an incompetent like Blair to sit in its newsroom and to have published Blair's work without fact-checking seems to put a very large onus on the editors for misleading readers.

Deliberately ignoring its established editing guidelines to print Blair's "falsehoods" would make the NYT complicit in the deception.

The NYT treated their readers as if they were raising mushrooms, that is, they kept them in the dark and fed them lots of horse manure.

[Liz]

........think that a higher standard than simple negligence -- maybe Actual Malice -- should apply.....

Now you're talking..........Actual Malice sounds good to me.

[Liz]

If a judge has said that victems families of the 9/11 terrorists attacks can sue the airlines and the Port Authority then this surely can be done.

The Blair deception is not quite analogous to a terrorist bombing.

Nevertheless, the untried area of journalistic malpractice should be explored in sue-happy America.

[mrustow]

Oh yeah, that's all we need -- another outrageous extension of the law. And if a judge can be so incompetent as to rule in favor of 911 families' right to sue everyone in sight, then it's only fair that other judges make incompetent rulings, say, regarding journalistic malpractice, or say, my giving me the right to sue Liz for posting this article, and vpintheak for defending the knuckleheads' thesis. I'm not aware of a "necessary, endless chain of judicial mistakes" principle of jurisprudence.

Sounds like some folks have been watching too many episodes of Law & Order.

[vpintheak]

Hey, I was being sarcastic, sorry I forgot the tag. I really think that all these lawsuits are out of hand and so are most judges, the power has gone to their heads because no one will stop them. Judicial activism is a high crime in my book.

[Liz]

Law & what?.....never watch it.

[muir_redwoods]

They can't be sued for journalistic malpractice for two reasons

They have never creditably engaged in anything a remotely reasonable person would term "Journalism" and

Even if they had, their duplicity is protected by waiver, they have simply been engaged in it for far too long and too notoriously for anyone to bring an action now.

[Liz]

They have never creditably engaged in anything a remotely reasonable person would term "Journalism"....

Very convincing argument.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Liz, is there a "ping list" for all greedy Trial Lawyers out there? Surely they can see the $ billions of potential from this article... or would that be "eating their own"?

I want to see liberal sycophant "victims" coming forward and complaining that they have been addicted to liberal dribble and lies from the NY Times for the past 20 years -- it's not their fault, they were duped! They were brain-washed! They deserve COMPENSATION!!!!!

Maybe Professor Krugman and Maureen Dowd will want to review the galleys of their "works in process" before going to print... ;)

[Liz]

I want to see liberal sycophant "victims" coming forward and complaining that they have been addicted to liberal dribble and lies from the NY Times for the past 20 years -- it's not their fault, they were duped! They were brain-washed! They deserve COMPENSATION!!!!!

A classic Pay-Me-I'm-A-Victim scam. Warped libs continually inflict their neuroses on our culture driven by outsized egos and their warped sense of entitlement.

Self-hating lib dupes just can't feel good about themselves unless they are in the throes of "victimization" and either 1) causing victims, 2) concocting victims, 3) playing victim, 4) commiserating over victims, or 5) creating another class of victims to bleed over.

[Grampa Dave]

This is brilliant and will have a chilling effect on the left wing lunatic mediots/videoits around the nation if it goes to court.

"The article introduces the novel legal theory of "journalistic malpractice" whereby, in the Times' case, "the continued publication of Blair's stories, despite the serious doubt about his work entertained and expressed by his direct supervisors, points to reckless disregard for the truth by key personnel at the newspaper."

"Given Blair's long trail of factual errors, the article argues, his editors either knew or should have known that he was "a frequent and deliberate liar." This raises some interesting questions: if a reporter is not meticulously accurate, does it follow that he might be stealing material and making things up? Did Blair's editors exercise "reasonable care" to prevent this from happening?

"Author Calvert imagines a world in which media companies would be held legally accountable for telling the truth, and the Times could be forced to pay for every one of Blair's lies. As it is, he says, the journalism profession lacks meaningful oversight, and the Times is free to "fire its editors, issue this massive mea culpa, hire an ombudsman, and go on its way. We would say that that fault on Blair should be imputed back up the chain of editors and all the way to the top."

Paid subscribers to fish wraps around the USA could use this as a baseball bat to warn their local editors/publishers to drop the lies/DNC spin or get sued.

Advertisers could sue ABCNNBCBS for fraud. The advertisers could say that they bought advertising for a news program not a schill for the DNC.

This would stop the global warming bs writeups and force retractions on past bs.