1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eddie Johnson v. The Trib and Skip Bayless

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by JayFarrar, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. rgd

    rgd Guest

    So they fucked up, big time, but it's not like there was any intent of malice involved, so the "rush to meet deadlines" excuse is totally valid. Eddie Johnson has no case.

    And I don't think the Trib story was on the cover. I believe it was a brief along the top of the back page.
     
  2. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    It's shameful that a fine guy like Eddie Johnson would make such a blatant play for money by filing a nuisance lawsuit.

    Yes, Eddie Johnson is a public figure -- doesn't he have an on-air gig right now?

    And no, there was clearly no malice.

    Everyone should want Trib to fight this. Hopefully it will be dismissed at summary judgement.

    Settling encourages nuisance lawsuits over our mistakes -- mistakes everybody makes. That would be really, really bad for us.
     
  3. tenacious_g

    tenacious_g Member

    I apologize if this is just plain ignorance on my part, but in my understanding of malice, it sounds like everyone here is under the assumption that malice is merely intent. But the courts have ruled malice can also be proven when there is a reckless disregard for the truth.

    http://medialibel.org/libel/definition.html

    Taken from the above link: "Actual Malice is what plaintiffs in the public eye have to prove in order to win a libel case. Actual malice is the act of publishing or broadcasting statements with prior knowledge of the inaccuracy of the statement or a reckless disregard for the truth."

    **or a reckless disregard for the truth.**

    A Chicago paper assuming it was their old Eddie Johnson without making any attempt to verify that seems to be pretty reckless to me. It was not as if the truth was not easily attainable... AP obviously did their job. Were there attempts by the paper to call the EJ they were accusing or verify before publication? I know the deadline rush apology makes me think no, which is what EJ and his attorney might argue made it reckless. Every other paper had deadlines and didn't accuse the wrong guy of child molestation. Unless I'm missing something (admittedly, I may be missing something here), this seems like a little bit of a lack of journalistic responsibility. I'm not by any means saying there is a pattern here on the paper's part, but in this isolated case it seems they are wrong.

    Again, I apologize if I'm flat wrong here. Some of you guys seem so sure of this, I hesitated to pose this thought, but please explain how this wouldn't fall under a reckless disregard for the truth.
     
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    ten_g,

    I think that you are correct to an extent. If a report came across that John Doe was a child molester and the Trib assumed it was the first John Doe in the phone book and wrote a story based on that, it would be a malicious disregard for the truth.

    But an assumption that the former NBA player Eddie Johnson was former Bull Eddie Johnson isn't so far-fetched.
     
  5. jaredk

    jaredk Member

    Sure, there has to be malice proven. But McGrath's apology, however quickly delivered and however heartfelt, doesn't prove there was none. In fact, being the devil's advocate here (or Eddie Johnson's lawyer), if "everybody" knew it just couldn't be Chicago's Eddie Johnson in that trouble, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the "mistake" was done intentionally. As Eddie's lawyer, it's my duty to put the guy who wrote the item under oath for a deposition.
     
  6. tenacious_g

    tenacious_g Member

    Can someone tell me, if they know, where the Trib caught wind of the story? Did they write their own or us the AP story and just use the wrong photo? Did they have the police report with DOB and SSN and address, etc? If it was their story, what were they basing it on and who did they attribute it to?

    I'm not sure how they did it and never saw their story.
     
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    My guess is they saw the AP story, made an assumption and localized it. Doubt they saw any police reports or anything.
     
  8. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Malice has to be proved, but the threshold is much higher for a public figure, which Johnson clearly is.

    And if I were Trib's lawyer, at a deposition I'd ask Eddie Johnson about his comments the day after it happened: "Everybody makes mistakes."

    This is the 5th time in the last month I've had to beg people on a journalism site to stick up for the First Amendment.
     
  9. swenk

    swenk Member

    I'm not seeing the First Amendment issue here--are you saying that punishing the Tribune for a mistake would somehow restrict their freedom to publish?
     
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Don't you think that your sphincter would be a little tighter if you got sued for every mistake?

    Not a far leap from that to getting sued because you had little Suzie's name wrong in the softball story and now it will cost her a $100,000 college scholarship.
     
  11. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Yes. Because of the First Amendment, we have the right to say all kinds of nasty and sometimes false shit-- and not get punished for it.

    You're an agent, right? OK, no offense, I don't necessarily expect you to get it. But I do expect the people who call themselves journalists to get it.

    The problem is, there's a lot of hatred for corporations (ESPN, Trib) and people (Luppy, Albom)... so much so that folks are letting that personal hatred eclipse their feelings about even the most basic tenets of journalism. It's called shooting yourself in the foot, and soon it could erode what journalism means and has meant to this country.

    I can only hope the views on this website don't really match those of practicing journalists, which is a distinct possibility.
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    You make it sound like the First Amendment is some sort of thin inky line, that everytime an outlet is challenged in court on a mistake or is ordered to comply with federal law, that everyone in the business must band together in their defense.
    I don't think that. I think each case should be looked at individually. So, for example, I think that blogger in San Fran should give the cops his tapes, but I digress.
    I don't know all the details in this particular case. I'm curious to find how a correct AP story was turned into a factual incorrect story in the Trib. I'm curious about the Sun-Times and the other papers in Chicago. It seems that if they got it right, how did the Trib get it wrong?
    The Trib has done this before, recently even, with some photos of people they said were in the mafia, and it turns out they had the wrong people, the right names, just the wrong people in the pictures.
    So it seems like a lawyer could establish a pattern, one that shows the Trib has a reckless disregard for the truth.
    And, as I recall, the Trib settled out of court in the picture case(s) as well.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page