Eddie Johnson sues the Chicago Tribune, others, for defamation

[JonathanG]

A former NBA player filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets over inaccurate reports in August that linked him to a sex crime in Florida.

Eddie Johnson, a Chicago native and former University of Illinois star who played 18 years in the NBA, works as a Phoenix Suns TV analyst. He was on vacation in Hawaii at the time and had nothing to do with the alleged assault on an 8-year-old girl in Ocala, Fla.

The suspect arrested in the case was a man also named Eddie Johnson, who also is a former NBA player.

An Associated Press story on Aug. 8 correctly identified the suspect as the former Atlanta Hawks player who attended Auburn University.

But a Tribune story on Aug. 9 mistakenly identified the suspect as the Eddie Johnson who had starred at the University of Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that the Tribune published the story with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

"It is a most foul libel indeed to be falsely accused of being a child molester," the lawsuit said.

The day after the Tribune story appeared, Dan McGrath, the paper's associate managing editor/sports, apologized for the "inadvertent but hurtful error" that he said occurred in the rush to meet deadlines.

"For the record, Chicago's Eddie Johnson remains extensively involved in charity work, including motivational speaking and basketball clinics for kids," McGrath wrote. "He was and is regarded as one of the NBA's model citizens."

Paulette Dodson, a Tribune attorney, said Thursday that McGrath's article already had expressed the newspaper's regret over the incident.

"Clearly, there was no malice on our part," Dodson said. "We plan to defend ourselves fully against the lawsuit."

The lawsuit also accuses other media outlets of similar mistakes.

According to the lawsuit, sports commentator and former Tribune columnist Skip Bayless mistook the Suns' TV analyst for the Florida suspect while appearing on radio on "The Jim Rome Show."

Bayless and Clear Channel Communications, which the suit identified as the owner of the program, could not be reached Thursday for comment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/chi-0610130260oct13,1,4924443.story?coll=chi-newslocalssouthwest-hed

 

[JonathanG]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

 

[Pringle]

I thought the next day Trib story quoted Johnson saying something like, "Mistakes do happen" and then praising him for being so understanding.

 

[Ace]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I don't see how he can win. The Trib may decide it's cheaper to pay him off, though.

 

[Clerk Typist]

Tribune had no intent in simply misreporting the facts. The judge will likely throw this suit out quickly, given the paper's prompt and thorough apology, and should. Meanwhile, by filing the suit, Johnson gives new readers the opportunity to discover the original misidentification, some of whom will believe he's the bad guy.

 

[SockPuppet]

Let the Trib walk; nail Skippy.

 

[Pringle]

Tribune had no intent in simply misreporting the facts. The judge will likely throw this suit out quickly, given the paper's prompt and thorough apology, and should. Meanwhile, by filing the suit, Johnson gives new readers the opportunity to discover the original misidentification, some of whom will believe he's the bad guy.

You're right. People, half-listening, will thing, "I bet he did it!"

 

[jfs1000]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

 

[Ace]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

Was it reporters or was it editors spicing up a wire story?

 

[Chi City 81]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

Was it reporters or was it editors spicing up a wire story?

That little tidbit has not been revealed yet.

 

[BigDog]

I'd say he's got a case. Apologizing doesn't justify sloppiness, especially with something of this sensitive a nature.

 

[JonathanG]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

Regarding whether or not he's a public figure...the Supreme Court really has never ruled one way or the other, but lower courts have ruled time after time that public figures do NOT lose their public figure status with a lapse of time. The reason for that being that public figures do not lose their access to the media where they can defend themselves against wrongful accusations like we saw in this very case. Indeed there were at least one or two articles specifically about how Johnson was wrongfully named as being a child molester when of course he wasn't. He had to go out and defend his name using the media, and that's exactly what he did. For example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2006-08-10-innocent-eddie-johnson_x.htm

Anyway, that's irrelevent I believe since he's still very much in the public light these days. Whether it's by being the voice of Phoenix Suns basketball, or through writing basketball articles on Hoopshype, he almost certainly would still be considered a public figure even if he somehow did lose it over time.

Did the Trib screw up with this article? Sure. Was there actual malice? Its going to be almost impossible for him to prove that. Especially with the subsequential apology.

 

[awriter]

So I guess this comes down to whether Eddie Johnson is still considered a public figure (almost certainly yes) and if so, whether the Trib had actual malice when they confused one Eddie Johnson with another.

Maybe they should have done better research, but its hard not to think that Johnson is just wasting a bunch of money by filing this lawsuit. If it helps him clear his name even further, though, then maybe he will get what he is really after.

I am not sure the burden of proof will be actual malice. Is EJ a public figure? I am not sure he is anymore. What I think we will here is the reckless disregard for the truth.

Honestly, confusing the two is inexcusable? Yes, they have the same last name, but that isn't enough. They should have tried to confirm it was actually that Eddie Johnson. Bad reporting.

To a guy on a bar stool, it is an easy mistake. But the reporters were careless. This injured Eddie Johnson's rep. I think he has a good shot at the case. It is going to be a costly mistake and I think EJ is right in taking this legal route.

Was it reporters or was it editors spicing up a wire story?

That little tidbit has not been revealed yet.

If memory serves, McGrath wrote in the article that someone on the desk messed up.

 

[DyePack]

The public figure defense won't mean beans in this case. It'll all come down to the malice part.

I don't know how long Skippy's little rant was before he pulled back. But I'd guess the Tribune will try to settle this one quietly out of court. I love the attorney's quote: "We plan to defend ourselves fully." Duh.

 

[oldhack]

I'd say he's got a case. Apologizing doesn't justify sloppiness, especially with something of this sensitive a nature.

If you're an editor or a reporter, Big Dog, I don't think that's a sword you want to live by.

Some states, although I don't think Illinois, have a retraction statute, which means that if you make a mistake and promptly retract it, a libel plaintiff can't be awarded punitive damages, which is where the bucks are. It recognizes that we are human and that we make inadvertant mistakes.

Johnson's probably a public figure, but I doubt he could meet the actual malace standard, barring evidence of some bizarre plot on the part of a late-shift Tribune copy editor.

Still, there is a potential interesting angle here: Are Johnson's lawyers going to claim a kind of ripple effect, that while the Trib made an innocent error, it can be held responsible for the consequences when Bayless read the story and then gave it national distribution on Rome's radio show?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Write the check, Trib. Now.
You do not want discovery on this one.
"Why were you in such a hurry that you couldn't check? Were there corporate pressures that factored into your decision? Can you produce documents to illustrate them?"

 

[Columbo]

I think that he has a case in the sense that he will DEFINITELY get a check from Tribune.

More importantly, though, he reiterates the separation of his name from this ass in Florida through a legal document.

 

[Riddick]

Not that he needs the money, but somebody is about to get paid!

 

[Twoback]

Why is the debate here whether he'll win the case?
We're journalists. We're not lawyers. (OK, most of us aren't. Sorry, Webster.) Shouldn't we be as bothered by a mistake of this sort as we are when somebody plagiarizes? This was a pretty heavyweight mistake. It also shows the value of having people who know sports working in sports. Anybody who knew the NBA of that era knew there were two Eddie Johnsons -- and which of them was likely involved here.

 

[oldhack]

It also shows the value of having people who know sports working in sports. Anybody who knew the NBA of that era knew there were two Eddie Johnsons -- and which of them was likely involved here.

You mean that people who "know sports" are exempt from making mistakes?

If I were Johnson's lawyer, I'd love to get you on the stand, Twoback.

"So you wrote that it was my client because you concluded, on the basis of your vast experience, which Eddie Johnson was 'likely involved?'"

Game, set, match.