The short answer is “no.”
In my opinion, our modern discourse allows for the trashing of reputations with reckless abandon. Shaming, attacking, and defaming are the new norm. Today, our laws offer too little protection from attacks on a person’s reputation, while allowing news outlets to grab attention though “click bait” headlines.
A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involved an article in the New York Times highlights this point. The person in question, Dr. Carlo Croce, is an Ohio State University based cancer researcher. The case, Croce vs. The New York Times Company, discusses a Times’ headline that read:
Years of Ethics Charges,
but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass.
Dr. Carlo Croce was repeatedly cleared by Ohio State University, which reaped millions from his grants. Now, he faces new whistle-blower accusations.
The gist of this article is that Dr. Croce is a bad doctor whom Ohio State protects from ethics charges so it can “reap millions” in grant monies. In essence, both Ohio State and Croce were co-conspirators in unethical research.
The appellate court ruled that the context of the entire article had to be considered when trying to determine if the statement was defamatory. The entire article! Since the article’s author noted that Dr. Croce had never been found responsible for misconduct, it was therefore “balanced”. This is often referred to, in Ohio Law, as the “Reasonable reader” standard.
To further complicate matters, the court found that in light of the entire article, the headline could be read as either defamatory or non-defamatory. Under current law, when something can have two meanings, the court must attribute to it the less harmful one. Almost like: Assuming the best, or giving it the benefit of the doubt.
While I don’t agree with the court, I do understand its reasoning. However, it creates a big problem as the net effect is that when you are a well-known public figure, you are no longer safe from a newspaper:
- saying terrible things about you
- insinuating that you are an unethical person without actually proving the truth of the charges
All in the name of journalism! To me, the court has now offered too much protection to news outlets. This protection allows a news organization like the New York Times to make headline grabbing accusations that are totally unfair so long as the article offers a counter-point. This might be great for making sure it grabs attention on Drudge Report, but it is unfair to the subject of the article.
We need better discourse in America. Re-balancing the right to protect your reputation, with the need for a vital free press, will create a national discourse that is both effective AND respectful.
One Response
Well said. Libel, slander, and defamation laws have been so well defined in the last century that journalists well know how to get around it to remain safe in the courtroom. However, you say “when you are a well-known public figure, you are no longer safe from a newspaper.” This is, by no means, a new development. Public figures have long been held to a different standard when it comes to how they can be reported on in the media. While I think the 24 hour news cycle has made this discrepancy much more prominent, I don’t think that the problem has at all worsened.