Is the Press a Feral Beast with Public Officials?

B. In the USA, Democrat Howard Dean went so far as to say politicians are terrified of the media, and Republican Scott McClellan said media distortions make it impossible for public officials to communicate issues and for the public to understand them competently.

C. How does press abuse of public officials hurt the USA?

D. The case that gave the press a stranglehold over public officials.

E. How can relations between press and public officials be repaired?

SUMMARY

Do you think most public officials, once elected or appointed, are honest and well meaning ... at least decent and trying to do a good job? We do. Why are the mistakes or misjudgments they make often falsely painted as crooked or having evil intent? Former British prime minister Tony Blair gave a very professional recognition of this in his "Feral Beast" speech on June 21, 2007. Blair was about to retire, and so was able to more honestly comment on relations with the news media. His comments and concerns may apply even more to the USA, where Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has said politicians are terrified of the media, and ex-Bush press secretary Scott McClellan says distorted reporting by the media makes it impossible for officials to communicate well with the public. This creates a debilitating animosity that hampers our nation's ability to deal with issues and problems, and may discourage good people from remaining in government or joining in the first place.

BLOOKERS: Do you agree or disagree with Blair, Dean and McClellan? Make sure to post your opinion.

WHAT BLAIR SAID (excerpts)

A. "The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked. The consequences of this are acute.

"First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.

"Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.

"Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out.

"Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as (important as) if not more important than the news itself. So -- for example -- there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.

"In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine.

"The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual gray is almost entirely absent. 'Some good, some bad ... some things going right, some going wrong' ... these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is 'a crisis.' A setback is a policy 'in tatters.' A criticism, 'a savage attack.' "

WHAT DEAN AND MCCLELLAN SAID

B. Turning from Britain to the USA, you might think most of the complaints about unfair press coverage would come from Bush Administration officials, and you'd probably be right, but one of the most unsettling comments about this comes from a favorite of the press on the opposite side, Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic Party.

Reporters don't mind covering Dean because he gives them colorful, caustic quotes, making for a ready-made story, yet he says politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said, according to an AP report of his appearance at a Mortgage Bankers Association conference last year. "If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

So that would turn the standard journalistic situation upside down, wouldn't it ... the more that truth would emerge, the less that reporters would be involved, and the more that reporters are involved, the less the truth would emerge.

Former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, in his new book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," has attracted much attention for criticizing his ex-boss. His criticism of the press on our topic here, its treatment (or mistreatment) of public officials, has drawn considerably less. Here's what he said:

"The press amplifies the talking points of one or both parties in its coverage, thereby spreading distortions, half-truths and occasionally outright lies in an effort to seize the limelight and have something or someone to pick on.

"And by overemphasizing conflict and controversy and by reducing complex and important issues to convenient, black-and-white story lines and seven-second sound bites, the media exacerbate the problem, thereby making it incredibly hard even for well-intentioned leaders to clarify and correct the misunderstandings and oversimplifications that dominate the political conversation.

"Finally, it becomes much more difficult for the general public to decipher the more important truths amid all the conflict, controversy and negativity."

McClellan goes on to say that "For some partisans, that is fine because they believe they can maneuver better in such a highly politicized environment to accomplish their objectives," but he believes such activities have "destructive potential" for the nation.

BLOOKERS: what do you think of this???

THE UPSHOT ...

C. Blair concluded: "I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future."

His comments and concerns may apply even more to the USA, where the Sullivan and other Supreme Court decisions have reduced the media's liability for making false statements, if not almost eliminated it.

As for this site, we think some of the best people might be leaving public service, or discouraged from accepting in the first place, rather than subject themselves and their families to press abuse. We've known a number of public officials and have found them honest people. Like most of the world, some are simply earning a living, but many are dedicated to helping other people or their country. Many could make more income (not satisfaction) in private employment.

Often the press reporting treats their actions as crooked, deceptive and suspect ... despite no evidence. That harms the individual and their family. Rarely have there been cases of "payola." Journalists make as many mistakes as public officials.

How do the media destroy public confidence? No person, organization or society is perfect, and all have some faults that can be attacked. If the media attack the shortcomings and ignore the benefits of a person, group or cause long enough, they can destroy the entity.

Today, by taking advantage of its lack of accountability, the press uses tactics that allow it to destroy almost anything it chooses. Pack journalism or likeminded thinking prevents the good from appearing elsewhere to offset the destructive stories.

Journalists became crusaders, not reporters. Journalists get personally involved, become crusaders for causes, not reporters of what happened. Often, they do not think there are two sides to their cause, they are right and righteous. Strangely, some journalists now claim they do not know how to be objective ... they should not be expected to be objective in their reporting the news.

There have been as bad or worse social problems solved in the past ... the main difference is that in those times, the public got more of the whole story and there was an understanding that change takes time. The debate was over the logic of the solution, not between anointed and benighted sponsors.

It is not that the news media seek to destroy our confidence or our country. It is an unintended - but inevitable - consequence. The way the new media operate is making Americans irrevocably cynical of all aspects of our society. That is chipping away at the tremendous reservoir of strength which was long a part of America and its people. If the present trend continues, it will destroy our country and society.

No one is suggesting that journalists "sugar coat" the news. The key is to not "arsenic coat" it, either.

The Case that Changed American Journalism ... For the Worse

D. Why can the 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 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 took 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.
What's happening right now? The stranglehold continues ...
So shielded and privileged has the press become that a newspaper can falsely accuse a former public official of having taken a bribe ... and get away with it without penalty.

In a very recent ... and eye-opening ... application of the Sullivan principles (May 17), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed a libel suit brought by Vincent R. Biskupic, who had been district attorney of Outagamie County from 1994 until January 2003 (Appleton is the county seat).

The decision upheld a lower court's ruling against Biskupic in a libel case he brought against the Shawano Leader for an article published in August 2004. Moreover, it actually intensified the defeat ... the lower court had found that Biskupic was only a limited purpose public figure, since he no longer was in office when the article ran ... but the appeals court said no, he's a full public figure because of ongoing publicity about him.

The article quoted Stacey Cicero, executive director of a domestic abuse prevention group, as saying Biskupic "was convicted of accepting bribes to dismiss cases."

Biskupic, while in office, had a policy of using payments to crime prevention groups and nonprofits as an alternative to criminal prosecution. He did not profit from the payments and was not affiliated with any organization that received them. He was investigated by an ethics board but not sanctioned. Judges in that district later voted to halt the practice, and the Leader's article focused on that issue. Cicero's group had received such a payment. She went on to say, "Some of the money that defendants paid to have their cases dismissed went to organizations that he was involved in or into his own pocket."

The next day, the Leader ran a correction, and it ran another one in September in response to a demand letter from Biskupic. But off to court it went anyway. John C. Peterson, Biskupic's attorney, said he was especially troubled by the nature of the accusation ... bribery ... being leveled against a lawyer and former prosecutor, someone to whom integrity means so much. Cicero, asked to explain, testified that she was quoted accurately but had gotten mixed up ... she had somehow confused Biskupic with Winnebago County District Attorney Joe Paulus, who was convicted of taking bribes in 2004.

Cicero, in the article, mistakenly referred to Biskupic as being Winnebago County's DA, not Outagamie County's. Biskupic had to show actual malice ... either knowledge the statements were false, or reckless disregard for the truth. He did not maintain that Cicero and the paper knew the statements were false, but there was reckless disregard in that, among other things, both Cicero and the reporter had plenty of time to check their facts but did not do so, and the paper hadn't bothered to interview Biskupic for his side of the story.

The court said no, this wasn't reckless disregard ... the mere fact of failure to verify information doesn't meet the legal standard .. and that the reporter had no reason to question Cicero's motivation or ... incredibly ... the accuracy of her information.

The above facts come from an article by David Ziemer in the Wisconsin Law Journal.
Ziemer, in his case analysis, noted that "the reporter in this case could have conducted a Google search or visited the state courts or State Bar web sites and, in a matter of minutes, identified problems with Cicero's comment."

He urged that the reckless disregard rule be re-examined in the light of modern technology. "Where the damage value of the false statements is extremely high, and the cost of verifying the truth of the statements is extremely low, a jury should be able to find reckless disregard for the truth."

Update: even anonymous bloggers are being exalted

A small newspaper in Illinois is trying to protect the confidentiality of anonymous (naturally) bloggers on its web site ... and in the process ignoring, if not stomping on, the rights of a murder victim's family and friends.

The Alton Telegraph is fighting a subpoena from a grand jury and Madison County state's attorney Bill Mudge to turn over the names, addresses and Internet Protocol addresses of readers who posted comments under five separate profile names. Mudge was quoted by reporter Brian Brueggemann of the Belleville News-Democrat with this explanation: "We're wanting some information that we think will further an investigation. There's a belief that there's a particular individual who probably has some information."

The Telegraph, in a motion opposing the subpoena, said the case "relates to information posted anonymously about other crimes allegedly committed in the past by the defendant, who is currently charged with murder."

The newspaper argues in its motion that Web site posters are protected sources under the state's shield law because "in the digital age, a newspaper or reporter receiving information in this fashion is no different from anonymous tips provided to newspaper reporters telephonically or in written form."

This is still a novel area of the law, and it's uncertain which side has the edge. Brueggemann quoted Don Craven, attorney for the Illinois Press Association, as saying, "There are some members of the media who have adopted the policy that they're going to give up those names voluntarily. When the media fights it, the cases are split." Craven, who is not representing the Telegraph, predicts the case will be "an interesting mess."

The prosecution could win its case by showing that the matter is of important public interest ... this being a murder case, it obviously qualifies there ... and that all other means of getting the information have been exhausted.

To support its subpoena, the prosecution could easily turn to the nearest big paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In a story on the Telegraph affair, it noted that its own web site ... STLtoday.com ... advises posters that their personal information may be disclosed to legal authorities "if we believe in good faith that such action is necessary to comply with a law or some legal process ... or to protect the personal safety or property of our users of the public." Incidentally, the Post-Dispatch has a liberal ... to say the least ... editorial page policy. However, Missouri, unlike Illinois, does not have a shield law.

In the various stories in the press and issue statements by press groups, there was not one specific mention of the rights of the murder victim's family and how those might interplay in the case.
Another update: press tops grand jury

In an astonishing but little noticed decision from Pennsylvania, involving what was probably a trumped-up story, the state's Supreme Court nevertheless ruled Sept. 25 that the unelected press has more power than the elected government.

It boiled down to that ... which entity should be given preference ... the state's Shield Law for the press enabling it to protect its confidential, anonymous sources, or the secrecy provisions of grand juries.

The case involved a January 2004 story by Jennifer L. Henn in the Scranton Times and Tribune (which were then sister papers) in which an unnamed source told her that Lackawanna County commissioners Randall A. Castellani and Joseph J. Corcoran ... both Democrats ... had been "considerably less than cooperative" while appearing before a grand jury investigating inappropriate use of inmate labor, drugs for sex schemes, financial mismanagement and improper political activity at the county prison. The two commissioners were largely responsible for supervising the prison.

Castellani and Corcoran often responded to the grand jury's questions "with vague, evasive answers including 'I don't recall' and 'not that I am aware of,' " Henn's source told her, and continued ..."Their testimony really irritated the jurors. They were ready to throw both of them out. After months of hearing all kinds of detailed, specific information and testimony, they just had no tolerance for that kind of crap. They were ready to take out the big hook and yank each of them out of the witness chair." Accordingly, the story's headline said the two had "stonewalled" the grand jury.

Only one problem: both commissioners denied it. Then Judge Isaac Garb, who supervised the grand jury, stated that 1) the two had not been evasive, 2) had not been non-cooperative, 3) had not stonewalled the grand jury, 4) had not caused the jury to become irate and 5) had not caused the jury to demand they be thrown out of the courtroom.

The two sued the Times and Tribune and Ms. Henn for defamation and sought to obtain the identity of the source so they could sue him/her for libel ... if, indeed, the source existed.

The plaintiffs won at the trial level ... Judge Robert A. Mazzoni said when the intent of the Shield Law and First Amendment "clashes with the need to enforce and protect the foundation of the grand jury purpose, the Shield Law should relinquish its priority." He said the story "undermined the grand jury process."

Pennsylvania law keeps witnesses' testimony before grand juries secret unless they choose to talk about it afterward. Everybody else connected with the grand jury ... prosecutors, jurors, court officials ... is forbidden to reveal its proceedings. Thus, the "source" was committing a criminal act.

Henn, in her story, asked Castellani if he wished to discuss his testimony, and he declined. She could not reach Corcoran for comment.

But at the next two levels ... the state's Superior Court and Supreme Court ... the newspapers won, as the courts ruled the Shield Law gave them an "absolute privilege" not to reveal their source. Simple as that.

The Supreme Court said that while Henn was on the "receiving end of a criminal communication, it was the opening of the speaker's mouth which violated the Grand Jury Act, not the attentiveness of the listener's ears" ... and thus the onus falls on the grand jury, not the reporter, to protect its secrecy.

While the press and its surrogates rejoiced ... "for the whole newspaper industry, it's a good decision," said J. Timothy Hinton, Jr., the papers' attorney ... a dissenting opinion from Justice Seamus McCaffery might give them pause had they paid attention to it. McCaffery noted Judge Garb's devastating findings of fact and said they supported the "suspicion" by Castellani and Corcoran that "the unnamed source may have been largely, or entirely, fictional."

McCaffery took it a step farther and indicated that the allegations against the two "were not actually based upon information provided by any source at all." In other words, the story was made up ... although the judge did not come right out and say it, the implication is obvious.

Was it made up? We'll probably never know, as Henn refuses to comment and of course the Shield Law decision means she doesn't have to. But we can use our common sense and make a good guess.
First, we have a reporter anxious to make a name for herself and get the heck out of town to bigger, better things ... which she succeeded in doing in 2005. She's now an editor for a chain of papers in tony, upscale Southampton, N.Y., a far cry from Scranton.

Second, we have the source's quotes. They sound phony. People don't talk like that, but journalists write like that.
Finally, we have the fact that the Times-Tribune's managing editor, Lawrence K. Beaupre, is all too familiar with questionable stories ... he's an expert, really, as he was the editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer during the Chiquita Banana scandal of articles generated by stolen voicemails that forced Gannett, the Enquirer's parent, to pay Chiquita damages of more than $10 million ... which is why Beaupre is now exiled in Scranton, though he maintained he was merely a scapegoat in that sad affair.

The upshot of all this .. what it means in the worst-case but unfortunately not far-fetched scenario ... is that a reporter or editor who's out to get you, or a reporter or editor who's a dupe of someone malevolent, can concoct a phony anonymous source and say the most scurrilous, damaging allegations against you ... and you can't do a thing about it short of starting a cancel-your-subscription drive or stop-your-advertising campaign.

Update: I (Gerry Storch) e-mailed both attorneys in the case, asking them 1) if the paper ever began an internal investagion into the probity of its story after Judge Garb's findings seemed to refute it so thoroughly, 2) if it made any difference legally that the plaintiffs were public officials rather than purely private citizens and 3) if they wished to make any comments about the above material.

Richard A. Sprague (plaintiffs' attorney) courteously e-mailed back and said 1) he had no idea, 2) it makes no difference legally and 3) thanks for the article but he had no comments to make.
A second update: perhaps Jennifer Henn skedaddled too soon. A Wall Street Journal article in the Oct. 18-19 edition on Scranton called it downright trendy with a regrowing population, revived downtown and the setting of TV's "The Office."

How one guy won

One of the few public figures to win a libel case in recent years was Ernest B. Murphy. Murphy was ... guess what ... a judge, and of course his case was heard by ... another judge.
Murphy won $2 million plus interest from the Boston Herald (a grand total of $3.4 million) after it accused him of being soft on criminals and insensitive to victims. One story, quoting anonymous sources, alleged the judge had instructed lawyers during a conference to tell a 14-year-old rape victim to "get over it."
Publication took place in 2002 and the verdict took place in 2005, but Murphy was back in the news in August 2008 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Commission on Judicial Conduct said he would no longer sit as a judge because he suffered from post-traumatic stress that stemmed from his legal battle with the Herald.
Murphy was able to achieve the almost insurmountable task of proving malice by chief Herald reporter David Wedge for three reasons, it would seem in analyzing the case:

-- The jury believed Murphy, not the reporter, during conflicts of testimony. When Murphy denied having told the 14-year-old rape victim to "get over it," and said he had instead inquired in a compassionate way if she could receive counseling to help her get over it, the jury believed his version, not the reporter's ... especially when the reporter's prosecutorial sources didn't back him up. An appeals court, which upheld the verdict against the paper, found that Wedge had exhibited a "lack of candor" on the witness stand, had committed other screw-ups such as saying the girl had "tearfully" testified in court about the impact of the rape when in fact she hadn't (her statement was read to the court), and the contradictions between what he said in his deposition and what he said in court had left his credibility "in tatters."

-- Murphy was able to show significant damage from what the paper had done. He said he and his family received a deluge of thousands of angry letters, hate mail and two anonymous death threats, one of which contained feces-covered toilet paper and said, "I'm going to wipe you out." A blogger on the Herald's own Internet chat room said Murphy's own daughters should be raped. He said he had to buy a .357 Magnum for protection. What's more, when Wedge was asked during his deposition, "Do you know what impact your stories have had on Judge Murphy and his five children?", he answered, "No." When asked, "Do you care?", he answered, "No." This gave the jury an insight into Wedge's state of mind ... and they found it malicious.

-- The Herald didn't run just one article, it turned loose a barrage of 14 articles and columns ... in other words, piling on. Wedge went one step further when he made an appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox-TV ... during which O'Reilly asked him, "Are you absolutely 100 percent sure that Judge Murphy said the rape victim should get over it?", and Wedge replied, "He knows he said it, and everybody else that knows this judge knows that he said it." This opened the door for Murphy's attorneys to show that Wedge had a reckless disregard for the truth.
You might think that in the years afterward, a reporter who cost his paper $3.4 million wouldn't have much of a future there. Wrong ... according to the entry about him in Wikipedia, he's still writing merrily away at the Herald.

As for Murphy, his conduct since hasn't been very exemplary ... he wrote two letters to Herald publisher Patrick Purcell on court stationery after the first verdict, demanding that the paper drop its appeal and hand him a check for about $400,000 more than it owed him at the time. Purcell said the letters, in all-capitals, seemed like ransom notes. This prompted the state judicial authorities to shuffle Murphy off the bench ... there were no true winners in this one.

Another guy won, too ... for now
A sheriff's deputy managed to win a libel case this summer against the Terre Haute, Ind., Tribune-Star.
It's an interesting case with two twists to it: 1) is a sheriff's deputy really a public official, and 2) what happens when a newspaper truthfully ... and fairly ... reports a false accusation?
The paper reported that the deputy, Jeff Maynard, was the subject of a sworn allegation of misconduct made by a driver, Sandra Buczek, after a traffic stop. She said Maynard knocked her to the ground with his clipboard and verbally abused her with sexual innuendoes. The paper also reported that the county sheriff doubted the veracity of the allegations, and that Maynard had refused comment. This shows the paper had tried to get his side of the story.

A state police investigation subsequently found the woman's allegations to be unfounded ... Maynard was not the officer who pulled her over, and her account of the incident was deceptive. The Tribune-Star reported all this under the headline, "Police: Woman Made Up Traffic Stop Story." It has admitted the allegations were false.

Maynard sued (this was in 2004), and when the case finally came to trial last July, he and his former wife testified that publishing the false allegations had damaged his reputation and caused them emotional distress. The jury agreed, awarding him $500,000 for compensatory damages and a cool $1 million in punitive damages.

The paper plans to appeal, saying the plaintiff hadn't proven the malice necessary for a finding of libel against a public official.
Of course, is a public official only someone who makes public policy, or can it be anyone on the public payroll no matter how lowly ... i.e., a sanitation worker? A clerk in the DMV? A street paver? A sheriff's deputy, of course, has power "on the street" ... it will be interesting to see if this translates to being a public official.

Most libel victories are overturned on appeal, or the damages dramatically reduced.

HOW CAN RELATIONS BE IMPROVED?

E. Every newspaper should have an ombudsman. Few do. This would provide an outside, hopefully independent check and review of the press ... and a public contact person to resolve complaints of unfair coverage.

Public officials should ask for interviews to be done via e-mail, so there will be a written record of what they say, or have the reporter call back to confirm quotes and information.

There will always be an inherent tension between the press and public officials ... but it should not lead to automatic animosity or unfair treatment.

BLOOKERS: what do you think ... how can relations be improved between press and officials?