The American Media and the American Press - Assignment Example

Issues in Journalism: The importance of libel cases 2007 Thesis statement: The defamation law in America needs changes through negotiations, instead of litigation, although the American Press at times drags press freedom too far. Libel is a legal term implying a type of slander, which according to the dictionary is a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation". Slander is often considered synonymous to libel but the former generally mentions derogatory verbal rather than printed statements about somebody. Today, there is little legal distinction between the two words mainly due to the emergence of television, which is a “speech” rather than written form of journalism. American television networks are often taken to court on libel cases. In the United States, libel and slander laws were formed even before its independence from Britain. As early as 1734, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was jailed for criticizing the governor of New York in his newspaper. Zenger's attorney created a legal precedence by contending that truth is the supreme justification in libel cases provided that the slanderous information is verified to be untrue. In libel cases, which are civil rather than criminal courtroom trials, the board of adjudicators decide whether a publication has printed defamatory information about somebody, how much the maligned person has endured and what amount of pecuniary compensations he or she deserves (Pressman, libel laws). The 18th-century makers of the U.S. Constitution pledged for freedom of the press in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the text of which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation). Even so, for years the Supreme Court excluded the media from libel cases on the basis of the First Amendment and there was no consistent libel law in the nation till 1964 when the famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case was made. In 1960, some civil-rights leaders censured actions of unnamed personnel of the Montgomery police department in the pages of the Times. The information was later found to be false, the police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, took Times to court for libel and won $500,000 in an Alabama court. The newspaper filed pleaded that it had the right to criticize the behavior of public officials. Annulling the lower court's verdict, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protection of free speech was independent of truth, fame or ideas. By stressing that First Amendment protection is relevant to state court cases, the decision paved the way for news media dealing with the civil-rights movement in the South (New York Times infoplease.com). The Supreme Court then issued a verdict that changed the libel law in the country into a national law, settling the free press promises of the First Amendment. The Court decided that civic officials could not prosecute for libel unless journalists were found culpable of "actual malice" by publishing bogus things. Even if Supreme Court verdicts such as the Sullivan judgment apply across the United States, most states maintain their own libel laws for individuals, with special laws for public personalities allegedly defamed by careless journalists. Carelessness, like spite, is a legal term implying inattention on the part of a journalist. American libel laws guard private individuals against wrong reports more than these do civic officials. Every year hundreds of libel cases are filed against the news media in the United States, mostly by present or ex-public officials, artistes or company executives who consider been harmed by media criticism in illegal, indecent, or doubtful ways (Pressman, libel laws). High-profile public officials and celebrities hardly ever find it justifiable to sue the press for libel even though logic seldom has a chance to prevail. Yet, till now, there has been no end to libel lawsuits filed by the so-called "power and glitter" of American society. According to a recent study by Gillmor and Grant, prominent people of the society, including the cultural "stars", file most of the libel lawsuits. But typically the more significant ones succeed the least, with only 29 out of the 131 such personalities winning libel cases. Gillmor and Grant propose that public officials and celebrities “shall have no remedy in libel law." The authors want the media to give time/slot/space to such important people whom they offend for replies as a deliberate rather than a lawfully forced solution. Similar proposals made over the last 10-15 years by legal scholars and judges, have only provoked debates and discussion. Now, with a store of statistics from 614 libel cases against the media between 1982 and 1988, Gillmor and Grant have supplied a definite academic basis for a convincing inference – that the glamorous libel suit is a failure and does not carry any social significance. The Gillmor-Grant study reminds us that the American press did not get what it believed it got in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964 (Denniston, 1992). Two years ago, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge won a $6 million libel ruling against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper for a series of articles published a decade earlier, implying that the judge wrongfully manipulated selling. And in another case in April 1991, an ex-district notary, Victor Feazell, was compensated $58 million for a wrong report on Dallas television station accusing him of taking bribes to settle drunken driving cases. An adjudicator in Chicago, Illinois, compensated businessman Robert Crinkley $2.25 million in May 1991 because a Wall Street Journal article wrongly associated him with corruption payments made to overseas officials. Crinkley alleged that the newspaper story lost him his job and the jury consented that he was a sufferer of vilification even though the newspaper published an addendum to its initial story. In libel cases, the person filing the suit has to establish defamation. Alternatively, a celebrity must prove that a journalist not only published untrue information but also did so irresponsibly and spitefully. For the last 30 years, American courtrooms have become turbulent legal front lines owing to hyped libel cases. In 1976, the tabloid National Enquirer reported that television actress Carol Burnett was involved in a dispute with ex-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant. A Los Angeles jury found the report false and awarded Burnett $1.6 million. However, an appellate court later lessened the libel award to $200,000, finding the earlier judgment too harsh on the Enquirer. In other cases, standards have abruptly been ebbed under a rush of legal diplomacy turning libel trials into costly battles with no one winning (Pressman, libel laws). Theoretically, the New York Times vs Sullivan decision was an eye-opener for the press so that it became more cautious while being aggressive in reporting. At the same time, libel has become a legal option for the common man who cannot generate publicity for wrong stories yet become victims of adverse press attention. Relying on the Sullivan theory, the American press considers that its constitutional screen is undeniably strong. But public personalities continue to go to court time and again even though they rarely win. The press, even when they rarely lose in these cases, has to incur high legal bills. A critic of Sullivan observed that the verdict did not prevent the influential from suing; it just libel lawsuits more expensive. The Gillmor and Grant study has puncturing the legend of Sullivan 's for liberating the evil spirit of libel. But what can the press do to stop the libel cases continuing to be move? It has just two choices neither of which is in any way hopeful – either to approach the Supreme Court to ban the proposal by Gillmor and Grant or it can crowd every state legislature (and possibly Congress also) and ask lawmakers to get rid of the right to take legal action against the press for defamation. Both options are risky. The Supreme Court seems inclined to run away from Sullivan rather than enlarge its reach. What would the Press do if the court starts to fiddle with Sullivan? It is obvious that the second option is preferable, particularly to politicians who are always troubled by libel cases. At the same time, press lawyers can continue to use the Gillmor-Grant study to settle out of court (Denniston, A Plea to Ban). It is very difficult to protect the American media even when they are correct since their duplicity is salient. Journalists order two sets of rules: one for themselves, one for the rest. They protect their shadowy sources of information yet demand shelter from public inquiry even as they expect others to be transparent. There are many great journalists who work in a straightforward way doing exceptionally significant work. America needs the best of journalism to be competent in their job, educating people about relevant information that would else remain unclear, if not concealed by the influential lobby. They need to make smart and responsible choices in monitoring their own behavior (McCarthy, 2007). Works Cited Kilman, J. & Costello, G. (Eds). (2000). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835522.htm Pressman, Steven, Libel Law in the United States , retrieved from http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm Denniston, Lyle A Plea to Ban "Stars" From Suing For Libel, American Journalism Review, July / August, 1992 McCarthy, Andrew C. Protect the American Media … Whether They Deserve It or Not, 2007, retrieved from http://www.acdemocracy.org/article/invent_index.php?id=414 Read More