Staff cuts may make owners vulnerable in libel cases
COMMENTARY | September 15, 2006

What will the courts say when litigants argue that news organization chieftains got rid of experienced staffers and put in place a rawer, under-trained newsroom, knowingly making the product more error-prone?


By Gilbert Cranberg and Randall Bezanson
gilcranberg@yahoo.com
randy-bezanson@uiowa.edu

Scarcely a week passes without reports of cutbacks in newsrooms by layoffs, buyouts or attrition. The applause you hear is from investors who know that, in the labor-intensive newspaper business, the big savings are to be had in payroll. Better hold the applause, however, because news organizations with fewer reporters, copy editors and sub-editors inevitably produce shoddier news products more prone to errors that can cost news corporations dearly. Our tip to investors: study our article in the March 2005 Iowa Law Review, “Institutional Reckless Disregard for Truth in Public Defamation Actions Against the Press.”

The article describes the bad things that can happen to news corporations when they knowingly risk inaccuracy to feed the bottom line.

In a nutshell, we contend that the traditional stress in libel actions on the missteps by reporters and editors is myopic. Typically, in a libel suit, every action by a reporter or editor in producing the story is examined minutely, while seldom, if ever, are corporate policies scrutinized even though they may directly impact what appears in print. A downsizing policy that strips the newsroom of its most experienced staffers and replaces them with inexperienced, over-worked and under-trained reporters, copy editors and sub-editors is a libel suit waiting to happen.

We believe that libel law should be interpreted so that the concept of recklessness, until now examined only in the context of behavior by newsroom personnel, is extended to apply to corporate decisions. As we wrote:

“...the central flaw in the actual malice test [for libel]...is its exclusive focus on individual rather than corporate conduct. This shortcoming is so fundamental that the test should be supplemented, in the press setting at least, with an institutional reckless disregard standard. This standard would apply to actions brought not against the reporter and editor but against the corporation and would be based on corporate business decisions made in the face of known risks of falsity. This tort action would rest on a largely objective assessment of the corporate decisions that affect journalism when they manifest knowing indifference to the risk of defamatory falsehood that flows from the decisions.

“...In other words, if you are harmed by a mistake, you should have the right to inquire whether the mistake was the result of a company policy or decision adopted knowingly or in reckless disregard of the likelihood of error, and if so, to hold the institution responsible.”

How might a corporate decision to slash staffing be made in “knowing” or in “reckless disregard” of the risk of error? The people who are most aware of how belt-tightening hurts the news product are the people who work in newsrooms. If they complain about how short-handed copy desks and pressure to produce copy have left insufficient time to verify stories, and they make this known to management but it insists nevertheless on further cutbacks, that would be compelling evidence of an action made in knowing or in reckless disregard of the risk of error.

We did not advance the concept of “institutional reckless disregard” with this particular scenario in mind. But as we reflected on it, we realized that the concept lends itself to a greatly empowered newsroom. No longer would staffers simply have to swallow the cuts made to satisfy investors; they could speak up to management about the consequences, and with a much better chance of being taken seriously.

We anticipate that the departure in libel law that we propose will come about, if at all, by court interpretation. We are not aware of any libel suits having been filed as yet based on the concept of institutional recklessness. We are reasonably sure that, sooner or later, such suits will be filed. If they are, and staffers had posed the right questions, the nation’s newsrooms could well be the big winners.       

-

Bruce Kushnick
Is basic American telephone service in a death spiral?
Bruce Kushnick questions whether AT&T and Verizon are trying to kill off the “plain old telephone service” that millions of Americans rely on. In a recent FCC filing cited by Kushnick, AT&T stated that landline utilities are from a bygone era, and asked to be relieved of its obligations to service them.

George Wilson
Obama gave a pass to out-of-control military spending
The GAO showed that contractors’ estimates have nothing to do with reality, and economic hard times may eventually force the President and Congress to rein in outrageously costly warships, planes and missile systems that don’t work. But that time isn’t here yet.

Martin Lobel
Some remedies for the Supreme Court power grab
It’s easy to find activism, impossible to find original intent behind the Roberts/Scalia group’s ruling on corporate political spending. Martin Lobel suggests six sharp, practical steps to deal with it.

Watchdog Blog
Barry Sussman
Scratch the Big Bonuses and Turn Them Over to Borrowers?
As an old assignment editor I’m used to asking questions and not being embarrassed if they expose me as naïve or wrong minded, because sometimes there’s a good story lurking. So here are a few simple questions. The biggest financial institutions are said to be on the verge of issuing $145 billion in bonuses. My [...]

Barry Sussman
A Simple Solution for Corporate ‘Free Speech’
A friend and contributor to Nieman Watchdog, Martin Lobel, sent this emaiI with the suggestion that people pass it along. Looks worth passing along to me. Here’s Marty: “I don’t know whether you’re as upset with the Supreme Court’s legislating in Citizens United v. FEC as I am, but there is a simple solution that is [...]

George Lardner Jr.
No 60 Votes Needed Here
Item: The New York Times reported Friday afternoon that “two more Democratic senators” said they would vote against a second term for Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. From there, the Times said this made it unclear “whether there were the 60 votes necessary to confirm Mr. Bernanke.” Excuse me? Sixty votes are not necessary to [...]

Blog main page >>
Web Essentials
Leading journalism sites, blogs...
Enter your e-mail address
Spotlight On

TWITTER
Follow Nieman Watchdog on Twitter.
(Nieman Watchdog)

Torture probe abandoned
For lack of interest, the Senate will not move ahead on the idea to appoint a commission to investigate detention, rendition and interrogation policies by the U.S. during the George W. Bush administration.
(Secrecy News)

Find John Brennan's op ed
Harry Shearer, working from a fantasy assignment desk, wants reporters to find a 2005 anti-Iraq war op ed that never was published.
(Huffington Post)

Those Mohammed cartoons
On Jan 2 a man with an axe tried to attack the Danish artist whose 12 depictions of the prophet Mohammed created a furor in 2005. After the failed attack, a Norwegian newspaper reprinted six of the drawings.
(Editors Weblog)

Afghanistan surge to rely heavily on private contractors
Private contractors are expected to make up at least half of the total military workforce in Afghanistan, according to Defense Department officials cited in a recent study from the Congressional Research Service. The number of contractors will likely increase by between 16,000 and 56,000 for a total of 120,000-160,000.
(TPM Muckraker)

Recession scars will be lasting
The aftershocks from deep recessions reverberate for years, even decades.
(USA Today)

The curious spending of a GOP pro-choice PAC
The money doesn't seem to actually go to supporting choice.
(Center for Public Integrity)

More Spotlights >>