It took six years but Steven Hatfill now has an apology from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for the distress caused by his columns, beginning in 2002, that tied Hatfill to the 2001 anthrax attacks that caused five deaths.

Hatfill sued Kristof and the Times for defamation, but had nothing to show for his time in court except legal bills. A federal judge created a nearly insurmountable hurdle for Hatfill by finding him to be both a public official and a public figure. That obligated Hatfill to show that Kristof had “serious doubts” about what he had written. The judge concluded, “In this case….there is no evidence to establish that Mr. Kristof knew of the falsity of his statements.”

The outcome was typical of what happens in libel cases. In most of them, the pivotal question is the “state of mind” of the writer; courts decide most cases in favor of the press because of the extreme difficulty plaintiffs have proving that a news organization either deliberately lied or had serious doubts about what they published.

People who sue because they believe the press damaged their good names aren’t interested in the “state of mind” issue; they want, more than anything, to vindicate their reputations. So, in a real sense, libel law is structured to answer the wrong question – what was in the writer’s mind rather than the truth or falsity of what was written or broadcast.

Kristof’s columns were critical of the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax attacks. In the course of assailing the FBI he raised questions about Hatfill’s role in the germ incidents. It’s interesting that Kristof’s Aug. 28 mea culpa column admitted to no errors, although we now know that his suspicion of Hatfill, while understandable, was mistaken. He expressed “regret” because the “job of the news media is supposed to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Instead, I managed to afflict the afflicted.”

Although belated, that’s a much more generous response than many complainants get when they take their grievances to the press. Sometimes their treatment is so shabby when they request a correction or apology they become determined to sue, which usually benefits only the lawyers. Timely apologies and regrets, when warranted, ought to be high on the list of every news organization’s strategies for heading off libel suits, not to mention providing fair treatment. Better yet would be a way to resolve disputes about falsity without going to court, where libel plaintiffs are lucky if the falsity question is even addressed.

Libel law not only answers the wrong question it makes news organizations leery of admitting error and apologizing because anything they say can be used against them in a subsequent libel action. Even now Kristof’s apology looks to be very carefully crafted. In some places physicians who apologize for their mistakes have legal protection. The press ought to work for the same safeguard when they want to be forthcoming about their errors and the harm they cause.