The case against litigation journalism－艾琳的新聞觀察站

The case against litigation journalism

The case against litigation journalism

by Carole M. Gorney

When A Florida widower claimed on CNN'S "Larry King Live" (Jan. 21, 1993) that his wife had died from a brain tumor caused by her cellular telephone, he was advancing a deliberate, wellplanned legal strategy called "litigation journalism." So were the lawyers and plaintiffs involved in "Waiting to Explode?," ethically embarrassing "expose" of General Motors' C/K pickup trucks aired on "Dateline NBC" (Nov. 17, 1992). The same applies to the two student plaintiffs appearing on "Good Morning America" (Feb. 26, 1993) to discuss why they were suing the Denny's restaurant chain for racial discrimination.

All these plaintiffs and their attorneys were given free air time to argue their cases, relatively unchallenged, in the court of public opinion. These are not isolated instances. In a frantic search for programming, such litigation entertainment is scheduled regularly on electronic news magazines and talk shows.

In the guise of news and public affairs interviewing, the moderator is elevated to the role of judge. The audience is invited to serve as jury, rendering instant "verdicts" that may have serious consequences. At stake are personal and corporate reputations, public fear, and lots of money. Even more critical is the threat that such exercises pose to the system of legal due process.

Those who use the First Amendment to defend litigation journalism should remember the ethical requirements of fairness, balance, and responsible reporting. Calling defendants for a statement is not enough to ensure fairness, nor is that a relevant point. Legal arguments are intended to be made before impartial judges and juries. It is not the function of the media to allow the merits of individual cases to be promoted outside due process.

That does not mean the media should not report when lawsuits are filed, who has done so, and what allegations are contained in the public record. It does mean that, once a lawsuit is filed, the media should avoid personalizing, emotionalizing, and promoting the parties on either side of the case. Those who argue that victims need recourse to litigation journalism to create a level playing field for themselves should consider that, once plaintiffs file lawsuits, they place themselves under the jurisdiction of the courts and agree to abide by the decision of the jury or judge. Their attorneys, as officers of the court, also are sworn to uphold the integrity of the legal system. Attempts to gain legal advantage, by manipulating public opinion should raise serious doubts about the motives of the litigants and the validity of their cases.

Many cases involving litigation journalism are aimed at forcing out-of-court settlements in return for quashing adverse publicity. The public ultimately pays the price, both in higher costs for goods, services, and insurance and in loss of information. Evidence that would have become public record in a trial, whether favorable to the plaintiff or the defendant, never is put to the test. Once again, due process is the loser.