The Case that Changed American journalism ... for the Worse

Why can the U.S. press attack any public official it wants with impunity? Why has it become basically libelproof, with no accountability whatsoever, with almost unlimited powers?

The answer lies in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sullivan vs. New York Times Co. on March 9, 1964. The case concerned L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner in Montgomery, Ala. He claimed he was libeled by a full-page ad in the Times on March 29, 1960. It was signed by many famous people, including Eleanor Roosevelt. It asked for contributions to a "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South." Sullivan was not named in the ad. But he sued the Times for $500,000, claiming the ad made false statements such as "police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the Alabama State College campus," and their "dining room hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission." The defendant admitted those statements were false.

As the case dragged through the courts, what had begun as a response by a public official to a false accusation in the press was transformed by the media into an attack on the emerging civil rights movement in the South. Therefore, when the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision, it was well accepted throughout the country. Until then, a plaintiff could collect damages if a false and damaging statement was published or broadcast about him/her. This was so even if the newspaper or TV station spread the falsehood without realizing it was false. The only way for the media to defeat a libel lawsuit was to prove the story was substantially true ... giving them a strong incentive to make sure their stories were correct.

Sullivan turned that upside down. It held that the press could be wrong in its allegations ... without being subject to liability ... as long as it didn't show malice or reckless disregard of the truth by "knowingly or recklessly" publishing falsehoods. In other words, "honest mistakes" were OK regardless of any harm that may have resulted. The plaintiff would have to prove the press was at fault.

Of course, Sullivan's argument was weakened by the fact he was complaining about an ad, not a news article or even an editorial. And the decision was given a broad justification in the idea that there should be no limitation on the public's right to disagree with the government.

The media saw an opening to expand their power, and ran with it.

In 1967, in the cases of Butts vs. Curtis Pub. Co. and Walker vs. Associated Press, the Supreme Court extended the Sullivan principle from public officials to so-called public figures ... a college football coach and a retired general. That same year, in Hill vs. Time Inc., the court held that private people suing because the media had put them in a "false light" (substantially the same as libel) would henceforth be subject to the Sullivan requirements. The ultimate result of this decision and subsequent cases, plus allowing the states to impose additional restrictions, is that the media are almost entirely immune from liability to all plaintiffs ... public officials, public figures and private persons ... in libel and false light lawsuits.

Israeli General Ariel Sharon found this out the hard way after Time Magazine reported that in a private meeting, he urged revenge on those who had assassinated a friendly Lebanese official.

Time said this made Sharon at least partially responsible for the massacre by the Israeli army of several hundred people in Palestinian refugee camps. Sharon denied he made that statement, and he sued Time in a U.S. court. He lost. The jury found that while Time employees acted negligently and carelessly, there was no malice, and hence no culpability for the magazine.

It was a different story when he sued Time in an Israeli court, where only the truth of the allegation was considered foremost. Time, realizing it would lose, settled out of court and had to pay Sharon off.

And that's why we are where we are ...