Eddie Johnson v. The Trib and Skip Bayless

I think you are wrong in that if this went to court, Johnson would lose. And it wouldn't even be close. So I think you're wrong on your interpretation of the law. Precedent has shown this time and time again -- and that's what the courts rely on -- precedent.

But you're not wrong in your thinking, no way.

 

If this case goes to a jury, the Tribune loses a probable eight-figure verdict.

The Tribune then wins on appeal. It then gets settled out of court.

People wonder why the media is villified by the general public. It's because we laud the First Amendment as a virtuous right and use it as a sword to cut down any who spots a error. Then we seem too aloof to sincerely admit mistakes -- rush to deadline? Calling the wrong person a child molester is poor journalism and reckless. Sorry just doesn't cut it.

I'll fight to the death for first amendment rights. But this one stinks.

 

He won't win in front of a jury. He has to prove malicious intent, and it simply isn't there in this case.

 

I don't think it's even reckless. It's a dumb mistake and a bad assumption. Not like they went out and reported on a tip. They took a wire story and screwed it up, most likely.

Most editing mistakes are bad assumptions.

 

dyepack -- Reading The Constitution Since 20 Minutes Ago.
Ace -- Ethically, you've got a case. Legally, not so much.

 

Poor journalism, absolutely. Careless, irresponsible, inexcusable. But malicious and reckless? The Trib could argue that it's not the first time THIS Eddie Johnson/former NBA player was confused with THAT Eddie Johnson/former NBA player (therefore showing it's a reasonable mistake). They could show that Johnson still has his job, and therefore hasn't suffered any damages.

Johnson, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by pursuing this--the retraction and apology probably didn't make headlines, but this lawsuit did. So even if he doesn't win a cent, even if the case never goes to trial, he still gets the publicity that can only help clear his name. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Damn internet law school!

 

Reading this post and others like it, I'm more glad than ever for my strict-as-hell college journalism law class.

Many of you arguing that Johnson will win his case have no fucking idea what you're talking about. As Luggie said, the burden of proof for a public figure is amazingly high.

 

Nothing wrong with that? I have a feeling this has as much to do with sticking it to the Trib than any high-minded desire to clear his name.

As I recall, the Trib's fuckup was a wire story in itself -- I know we ran it. The story of the mixed up Eddie Johnson's is something the public is aware of, so it's not as if the public is walking around with any more assumptions than the already were about the "good" Eddie Johnson. The truth is the two of them have been getting mixed up since the early 80s.

Don't get me wrong, the Trib fucked up and should have scorn heaped upon them for it, and I'd love for Eddie Johnson to stick it to them, but not legally, because a mistake does not constitute libel and his case is one that could affect us all.

 

I'm not arguing, I'm asking: how would you like to see Eddie Johnson "stick it to them" outside of legal action?

All I'm saying here: Johnson has the right to bring legal action, and the Tribune has the right to defend it. The moral highground (is that a real word?) of "newspapers shouldn't be held liable for mistakes" is a nice idea....but for the courts to decide.

 

Fizzies in the toilets?

 

Too nice. I was thinking more of the flaming bag of dog poop on the doorstep. You must be a newspaper guy.