Protecting the news media

Florida State Senator and gubenatorial candidate Rod Smith is co-sponsoring a bill to protect the MSM from lawsuits over stories that are true but put someone in a false light. The bill is supposed to be sparked by a recent libel $18 million libel judgement against a Gannet newspaper.

I've been highly critical of the MSM, but I see the Anderson story as an annomaly. As is libel is tough to prove. The standard is very high, and if I recall correctly was set in the Supreme Court case Sullivan vs The New York Times. If the went beyond what the law is supposed to be, the judgment will be overturned.

Right now I wonder what Smith's motivations are for this bill. He is running for Governor, does he think this is an issue the public cares for? Considering the distrust people have for the media, I don't think so. Nor do I think the concern for small newspapers is genuine. Most small news outlets, take for instance the Boca News, hardly break controversial news. They receive the same protections as the larger MSM also.

Maybe Smith doesn't understand that. Perhaps Gannett is contributing to his campaign. Either way, I don't see the need for this bill. The bill appears likely to die too.

Open Post- Bullwinkle Blog, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bright and Early, Basil's Blog,

As a state attorney, legislator and candidate for governor, Sen. Rod Smith often has been angered by how he sees himself in the news.

But he would rather risk the barbs of bad press than muzzle what he considers the public's right to know, sometimes in detail, what is going on. State Rep. David Simmons, who heads the House Judiciary Committee, agrees with Smith that wincing at an unflattering description or shuddering at a headline that can be taken two ways is better than stifling information - as long as it's accurate.

That's why Smith and Simmons are sponsoring a bill that would protect the media from lawsuits sparked by information that is true. The measure grew out of an $18.28 million jury verdict against the Pensacola News Journal, awarded to a man who felt a news story cast him in a "false light."

"As aggravated as I get at the press, because I'm a public official, you know that if the press wasn't there, we would behave entirely differently," Smith, D-Gainesville, said. "We'd steal the silverware on the way out, if it wasn't for the press."

His bill (SB 1346) would set criteria for suing over alarming information. A report would have to be false, place the subject "in a false light that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," and be made with disregard for the truth or the false impression created by the information.

"This is not going to be a license to destroy the character of honest people," Simmons said. "This is for the purpose of assuring that we have weighed freedom of the press with the rights of individuals."

He said his committee staff is studying laws in other states - some that bar suits for accurate news accounts, others that recognize "false light" liability under various circumstances. Simmons said the Pensacola case was not what the "false light" doctrine was meant to be.

"The concept of freedom of the press requires that we correct this decision," he said.

On another media-law matter, Sen. Gary Siplin introduced a bill recently that would increase the penalty for criminal libel from a misdemeanor to a felony, punishable by one to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The Orlando Democrat's bill (SB 2742) would also add broadcasters to the existing law against deliberate false attacks.

Siplin's bill, which has no House companion and has not yet been referred to a Senate committee, would also make it a felony for anyone to knowingly submit lies to a newspaper or broadcaster for distribution.

The Pensacola paper in the "false light" case is owned by Gannett Co. Inc., owners of the Tallahassee Democrat and more than 100 other newspapers nationwide. The case arose in 1998 when the News Journal printed a story about Joe Anderson Jr., founder of the Anderson Columbia road-paving company in Lake City.

The article said Anderson "shot and killed" his wife during a hunting trip. Two sentences later, the story noted that law-enforcement investigators had ruled it an accident, but Anderson maintained that the news item cast him in a "false light."

Smith said some publications will skip stories, rather than risk spending thousands of dollars defending against lawsuits filed by people claiming that accurate, pertinent information is presented in an unfavorable way.

"You know what? Gannett and the New York Times might be able to withstand that," Smith said. "But most small press outlets, weeklies and even dailies, are not going to write the stories that need to be written."

Stephen MacNamara, a former legislative aide who is an associate vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University, heartily disagrees with the legislators. MacNamara, who teaches a media law course at FSU, said people deserve protection against misleading tales being spread about them.

He said the "false light" bill would give publishers, broadcasters and bloggers an escape from responsibility. While a correction or retraction might set the record straight in a newspaper or broadcast, but MacNamara said information spreads fast and lasts forever on the Internet.

"I don't care if it's some mainstream publisher or some blogger, they ought to be responsible for not only accuracy but for creating false impressions," MacNamara said. "The way I read it, this eliminates 'false light' as a tort in Florida."