U.S. media lose more ground

Press, 20 April 1979, Page 5

U.S. media lose more ground

NZPA-Reuter Washington The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a journalist sued for libel by a public figure may be compelled to disclose his personal opinions and conclusions on a story and the editorial decisions behind its publication. In a decision which could have wide-ranging effects on American libel law, the justices voted six to three to allow a retired United States Army officer to pursue a SUS4SM libel suit against a television network. The case arose from a Columbia Broadcasting System programme in 1973 challenging the veracity of Lieuten-ant-Colonel Anthony Herbert. who had accused his superior officers of covering up reports of atrocities in Vietnam.

Justice Byron White, giving the courts majority opinion, said people who sued for libel should be able to ask whether the author

knew or had reason to suspect that publication of an offending report was an error of judgment. According to a report by American Broadcasting Comp a n y television, disagreement among the judges was so sharp that a shouting match took place in the chamber. Mr Herbert sued a C.B.S. producer, Barry Lando, and a reporter, Mike Wallace, for defamation, claiming they had falsely and maliciously portrayed him as a liar on a segment of the network’s “60 Minutes” programme. The court ruling means that C.B.S. and its employees must answer Mr Herbert’s questions about editorial decisions and their state of mind when they were preparing the programme. A landmark 1964 Supreme ; Court decision said that pubi lie figures sueing for libel , cannot succeed unless they [prove “actual malice.” The latest ruling means

that in future cases lawyers representing public figures will have wide discretion to probe into the “editorial process” of assembling and publishing a story. The decision also appears certain to raise a controversy about a possible rare Supreme Court leak of one of its decisions several days in advance. A.B.C. television news on Monday predicted the court would hand a defeat to the news media by requiring them to put their editorial processes and thoughts in evidence in a libel case. Until now, courts have resisted forcing journalits to tell what their thoughts, opinions, and conclusions were while preparing a news story which became an issue in a libel suit.

Justice White said courts had traditionally admitted evidence relevant to a defendants state of mind. “The rules are applicable

to the press and to other defendants alike, and it is evident that the courts across the country have long been accepting evidence going (into) the editorial processes of the media without encountering constitutional objections,” Justice White said.

A newspaper watchdog organisation, the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, “the Supreme Court decision today . . . is a major defeat for the First Amendment because it allows courts to intrude into the most private thoughts in editorial discussions of journalists and news organisations.”

H. H. Hornby, editor of the "Denver Post” editor and vice-president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, said the First Amendment had been written to give the press substantial protections in its “uphill” battle to investigate the workings of government. “The Burger court, seems

determined to erode those protections and burden the investigative efforts of the press.” Other journalists attacked the decision and the “Chicago Sun-Times” editor, Ralph Otwell, said: “Going into the thought process of a reporter and all the subjective judgements he is forced . . . to make is a George Orwellian invasion of the mind. “In other words, 1984 has arrived about five years early.” The court’s ruling and others in the last year which have been criticised sharply by the media are seen as chipping away at the freedom of the press in this country.

In the last 12 months the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger has declared that unannounced searches of newspapers for evidence in criminal cases are permissible and eroded reporters’ rights to protect news sources.