PressEthic

The 15 November 2006 New York Times reported that the chief justice of the Illinois State Supreme Court, Robert R. Thomas, had been awarded $7 million as compensation for damage to his reputation resulting from a column published in 2003 in The Kane County Chronicle. The column by Bill Page accused the judge of trading his vote for a political favor that would have affected a local judicial race.

At trial, The Kane County Chronicle had tried (but not been allowed by the judge) to argue that as a columnist, Page could not be "held to the standards of a reporter." Lawyers for the newspaper stressed that Page had accurately reported information received from his unidentified sources.

But jurors for the case countered that Page should have attempted to confirm the facts of the allegations against Judge Thomas with other sources, or at least given the judge the opportunity to respond to such damaging accusations before they were published. The jurors hoped their verdict would restore the judge's reputation and let the media know that careless journalism will not be tolerated.

After the verdict was announced, lawyers for The Kane County Chronicle and one prominent media observer, Sandra Baron, Executive Director of the Media Law Resource Center, called the verdict "'chilling'" and warned that it could "'embolden'" other public officials to file suit against newspapers. They said that beleaguered members of the media may now feel reluctant to criticize high-ranking officials.

The lawyers for The Kane County Chronicle also pointed out Judge Thomas's tricky position as the overseer of all judges, including the trial judge, and the Illinois State Supreme Court justices -- many of whom testified on Judge Thomas's behalf. They hinted that this factor may have complicated the trial and could also influence any future appeals.

Let's put aside all the underlying agendas and legal finger-pointing. If one simply evaluates the facts of the matter, I would argue that the verdict is essentially correct. The Kane County Chronicle recklessly published grave accusations of official misconduct (a felony) made by anonymous sources, without confirming the information or allowing the accused to respond and deserved to be censured.

Perhaps the case was complicated by Judge Thomas's arguable ability to influence the trial judge; perhaps jurors were acting upon an anti-media agenda. But regardless of the validity of such speculation, I would emphasize that at the heart of the case is the quality of the journalism that resulted in the publication of damaging accusations.

Clearly Page and his editors did not approach the anonymous sources' information with appropriate caution and skepticism, seeking outside confirmation of the facts of the accusation against Judge Thomas. If it had proved impossible to confirm the charges, perhaps The Kane County Chronicle should have reconsidered running the column -- at least until more research and reporting had been completed.

Moreover, that Judge Thomas was not made aware of the column before publication and given the opportunity to respond is simply unprofessional and constitutes negligent journalistic behavior.

Ironically -- as one legal scholar, Cameron Stracher, Co-Director of the law and journalism program at New York University Law School, noted -- "judges are supposed to protect free speech," not sue newspapers to restrict it.

But in bringing suit against The Kane County Chronicle, perhaps Judge Thomas did do something to boost free (and responsible) speech. His suit once again highlighted the problems associated with anonymous sources, as well as the importance of thoroughly vetting information and responsibly handling potentially damaging accusations that appear in print. While this verdict may be a setback for The Kane County Chronicle, journalists throughout the U.S. will perhaps take note of the case's outcome and proceed more carefully and honorably in their own future work.

And this careful, conscientious approach to reporting is the surest way to win back public confidence in journalism today.