PressEthic

In an alarming verdict that some say will have a “chilling effect” on journalism, a jury found an Illinois newspaper columnist guilty of libel and awarded the judge that sued him $7 million.

Many view the justice system as one of the few remaining safeguards of freedom of speech. A New York Times article discussed the case.

It is peculiar for a judge to sue a newspaper, said Cameron Stracher, a co-director of the law and journalism program at New York University Law School, because judges are supposed to protect free speech. “The courts were the last protector,” Stracher said, “and now even the courts are suing.”

Chief justice of the Illinois State Supreme Court, Robert Thomas, accused Kane County Chronicle columnist Bill Page of malice and reckless conduct. The accusations alleged that in 2003 the journalist falsely stated in his column that the judge had traded his vote for political favor. A jury decided that Page and his newspaper, a 14,000-circulation daily based outside of Chicago, were guilty and awarded the judge a notable settlement.

Jurors acknowledged that the decision was an attempt to “send a message” to the news media but expressed a primary concern for restoring the judge’s reputation.

Legal implications are now often taken into consideration when making a journalistic decision. If ethical standards aren’t enough to keep a journalist in line, the threat of a lawsuit often is. Clearly that threat is more prevalent than ever before. But what if a journalist’s work is not of malicious intent, but an attempt to uncover controversial truths or in public interest?

This is a case that media lawyers claim “has broad implications for press freedoms.”

According to the Media Law Research Center:

Sandra Baron, executive director of the center, said it was not clear if such cases were increasing, but she said the verdict made the press more vulnerable while it is under attack “from almost every aspect of society” and the industry is in some economic turmoil. “In the short run it looks as if the judge has vindicated his reputation,” Ms. Baron said. “But in the long run, society will pay for his vindication when the media is reluctant to criticize those in high office in the wake of lengthy, bitter, expensive trials.”

Most alarming about this case is the fact that lawyers allege that the trial judge did not allow them to argue that as a columnist, Page was not held to the standards of a reporter. Page’s assertions were based on unidentified sources and the information was accurately portrayed.

The precedent furthered by this case intensifies my fears for the profession of journalism. I believe strongly in the importance of journalism as a “society watchdog.” When that value is taken away, it is unfortunate and frightening for journalists, but more so for the American public.