Can You Sue a Journalist for Fraud?
By Brendan I. KoernerPosted Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2002, at 5:24 PM ETThe Associated Press alleges that 40 stories written by ex-reporter Christopher Newton contain quotations from made-up sources, such as "Tim Dale" of the "Malen Clinic" and "Lynne Hallard" of "Civil Liberties Focus." Can a journalist be prosecuted for fabricating sources?
Theoretically, but it would be a precedent-setting stretch. Inventing sources is not a crime in and of itself, although it certainly violates every code of journalistic ethics known to man. A criminal fraud case would require that the reporter's deceit had been malicious and resulted in financial gain. The latter, in particular, would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove, since a published story is not intended to attract investment or gifts. Quoting "Hugh Brownstone" of the "Intergon Research Center" in his story on stealth bombers, for example, did not net Newton any additional revenue.
A duped newspaper or magazine could contend that a fiction-spouting journalist obtained part of his salary via fraud, and use a criminal proceeding to try and recoup that money. Given the profession's notoriously low wages, however, it's probably not worth the publicity headache and legal fees. No news organization has ever pursued such a case.
Civil action is a different matter. Newton could be sued for libel if any group feels misrepresented by one of his alleged fabrications. Anti-drug crusaders DARE once sued New Republic fantabulist Stephen Glass over a critical piece he published in Rolling Stone, which was later found to contain several trumped-up quotes and anecdotes. DARE settled the case in 1999 in exchange for an undisclosed sum and a written apology. A companion $50 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone was later dismissed, on the grounds that the magazine had not acted with "actual malice" in publishing the article.
Next question?
Explainer thanks Tim Gleason of the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication.
Brendan I. Koerner is a fellow at the New America Foundation.
Remark From The Fray:
The press lie to the people and be punished for it? Surely you jest!
One blatant example known to most people is from 1898. After the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, tempers already running high over Spanish atrocities (including concentration camps, by the way) among the Veddy Impawtant Peepul in America felt that the national honor demanded war with Spain. But even at the time there were questions over the Maine explosion - was it sabotage? a ghastly accident? a defective shell setting off the magazine somehow? a Spainish mine? what? - and Spain really didn't want a war with the United States anyway. William Randolph Hearst, the father of yellow journalism, sent New York Journal artist Frederick Remington to report on the tenor of Havana and the surrounding countryside. Remington sent a telegram to Hearst: "Everthing quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war." Hearst wired back, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And so he did, ending Spain's days as a colonial power and involving the U.S. in the first of a nasty series of conflicts whose effects and results reverberate in the Caribbean basin to this day.
Kindly notice that Hearst & Co. LIED. His own man on the scene said that there was no desire for war. But Hearst wanted a war, and he by-god got one, by manipulating the opinion of America via the media.
If this sounds familiar, it should. It's not the only example by a long shot.
From what I can tell, American reporters at least do very little investigation in their reporting these days. The broadcast media runs a whole lot of what's called "B roll" stuff, by no means restricted to science and military news, propaganda provided to support or promote a position or product. The print media uses lots of crap extracted from PR releseases, without verifying it. The trouble is, both major branches of the media run it AS IF they ferreted out the story themselves and present it as "news" when it's actually PR propaganda. They know the average American has not studied journalism and PR sufficiently to realize he is being duped with the active complitity of the press. The same press, by the way, that loves to trumpet itself as the guardian of American freedom by causing the evildoers to fear their journalistic light.
Kinda hard to turn that light on your subjects when you are in bed with them, I think.
Even when a reporter is caught out lying, by inventing quotes from fictional reviewers or nonexistent research institutes or whatever, it is rare that they are disciplined by their fellows. The case a couple of years ago when a Washington Post reporter had to give back a Pulitzer because it was proven she had lied and invented material to support her award-winning 'story' is very much an exception, not the rule. If the level of bullshit is deep enough, perhaps the media outlet will fire the reporter. Yeah. Maybe. About as often as the Red Sox win the World Series or the Jamaicans win the gold medal in Olympic bobsledding.
It was Tom Clancy who observed in Executive Orders that as a practical matter reporters enjoy an immunity from libel and slander laws equal to that of a sovereign monarch. They can lie all they like, and it is almost impossible to prosecute them for it. The most an individual can do is stop buying that paper or watching that channel or listening to that station. As if the media moguls care.
The truth is out there. Yes, I know it's an overused and abused phrase. There are still honest reporters that try to honestly report what is happening when they are not being muzzled either by their own bosses or the goddamnyankee gummint (or does anyone think it was coincidental that Michael Moore's interview on Phil Donohue's show, in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, yet, was pre-empted by an hour of MSNBC dribble about the Houdini Sniper that contained no new information?). But to sift the wheat from the chaff takes more time than most people can devote to the task.
In closing, I suggest that if you want a reasonably objective view as to what is going on, listen to or watch the BBC. They set the standard for objective news reporting around the world - and they are not intimidated by whichever batch of fools happen to be in power in Washington.
-- Roy Jaruk
(To reply, click here.)
(10/23)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Tea Party Protesters Are Getting Smarter
Lithwick: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Is a Lousy Place To Examine the Legality of Torture
Who Is Mrs. Cohen From Hadera, and Should Israelis Care Where She Puts Her Money?
What Wired, Esquire, and Hooters Magazines Think You Should Give for Christmas
Save the Planet. Eat More Brie.
How Easy Is It To Hike Into Iran Accidentally?
Remark From The Fray:
The press lie to the people and be punished for it? Surely you jest!
One blatant example known to most people is from 1898. After the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, tempers already running high over Spanish atrocities (including concentration camps, by the way) among the Veddy Impawtant Peepul in America felt that the national honor demanded war with Spain. But even at the time there were questions over the Maine explosion - was it sabotage? a ghastly accident? a defective shell setting off the magazine somehow? a Spainish mine? what? - and Spain really didn't want a war with the United States anyway. William Randolph Hearst, the father of yellow journalism, sent New York Journal artist Frederick Remington to report on the tenor of Havana and the surrounding countryside. Remington sent a telegram to Hearst: "Everthing quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war." Hearst wired back, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And so he did, ending Spain's days as a colonial power and involving the U.S. in the first of a nasty series of conflicts whose effects and results reverberate in the Caribbean basin to this day.
Kindly notice that Hearst & Co. LIED. His own man on the scene said that there was no desire for war. But Hearst wanted a war, and he by-god got one, by manipulating the opinion of America via the media.
If this sounds familiar, it should. It's not the only example by a long shot.
From what I can tell, American reporters at least do very little investigation in their reporting these days. The broadcast media runs a whole lot of what's called "B roll" stuff, by no means restricted to science and military news, propaganda provided to support or promote a position or product. The print media uses lots of crap extracted from PR releseases, without verifying it. The trouble is, both major branches of the media run it AS IF they ferreted out the story themselves and present it as "news" when it's actually PR propaganda. They know the average American has not studied journalism and PR sufficiently to realize he is being duped with the active complitity of the press. The same press, by the way, that loves to trumpet itself as the guardian of American freedom by causing the evildoers to fear their journalistic light.
Kinda hard to turn that light on your subjects when you are in bed with them, I think.
Even when a reporter is caught out lying, by inventing quotes from fictional reviewers or nonexistent research institutes or whatever, it is rare that they are disciplined by their fellows. The case a couple of years ago when a Washington Post reporter had to give back a Pulitzer because it was proven she had lied and invented material to support her award-winning 'story' is very much an exception, not the rule. If the level of bullshit is deep enough, perhaps the media outlet will fire the reporter. Yeah. Maybe. About as often as the Red Sox win the World Series or the Jamaicans win the gold medal in Olympic bobsledding.
It was Tom Clancy who observed in Executive Orders that as a practical matter reporters enjoy an immunity from libel and slander laws equal to that of a sovereign monarch. They can lie all they like, and it is almost impossible to prosecute them for it. The most an individual can do is stop buying that paper or watching that channel or listening to that station. As if the media moguls care.
The truth is out there. Yes, I know it's an overused and abused phrase. There are still honest reporters that try to honestly report what is happening when they are not being muzzled either by their own bosses or the goddamnyankee gummint (or does anyone think it was coincidental that Michael Moore's interview on Phil Donohue's show, in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, yet, was pre-empted by an hour of MSNBC dribble about the Houdini Sniper that contained no new information?). But to sift the wheat from the chaff takes more time than most people can devote to the task.
In closing, I suggest that if you want a reasonably objective view as to what is going on, listen to or watch the BBC. They set the standard for objective news reporting around the world - and they are not intimidated by whichever batch of fools happen to be in power in Washington.
-- Roy Jaruk
(To reply, click here.)
(10/23)