I can make the argument that this article is potentially harmful for several reasons. This article posted under the police blotter of wsbtv.com is about a man who attacked a gay bar in Massachusetts. The article presents many different points that stand out to me and I find particularly pertinent to the issue of libel.
The first issue I found with the article is the headline. I had to read it twice to actually understand what it is trying to convey. The headline is "Gay Bar Attack Suspect Used Nazi Symbols, Police Say." This headline reminds me of the examples we discussed in class that are a little ambiguous. It is confusing as to who is being described here. A better headline might be "Gay Bar Attacked, Suspect Used Nazi Symbols." I am not sure if that is even a possibility for a headline, but it makes much more sense to me.
In the second paragraph of the article, the news station uses the word "allegedly" and "they say" to describe the suspect and actions made by him. These two words/phrase are very vague and can sometimes lead to issues with libel. Who is they and why or how is their say accurate? In this same paragraph, the word "skinhead" is used to describe materials found in the suspect's room. I believe the word "skinhead" could constitute as one of the words on the list Joe presented in his lecture that people should look out for. In fact, the article uses the word twice. The second time they use it as "skinhead paraphernalia." I believe this risky or harmful because the article does not define "skinhead," but simply labels the suspect as owning materials associated with this group of people, which is obviously negatively portrayed within the article.
Apart from the specific words that I believe make this an argument for a possibly risky article that could or could not be libelous, I also went through the article and answered all of the questions a plaintiff must prove in order for the article to actually be libelous.
1. Statement was published. Yes, the statement has been published.
2. Plaintiff was identified. Yes, the plaintiff was identified. Jacob D. Robida is 18 years old and from New Bedford, Mass.
3. Statement was defamatory. Yes, I personally believe the statements made in the article were defamatory because the article accused him of possessing "skinhead paraphernalia."
4. Statement caused injury. Yes, I believe the statements can potentially cause injury to Robida because it is claiming he is associated with a very controversial group and this could definitely be detrimental for him now and in the future.
5. Publication was at fault for publishing. Yes and no. I believe they are at fault and are not because yes they were reporting the news, they just did not do a very good job at it.
Overall, the article could have been written differently and without the potential of being harmful. The reporter who wrote this should have just written the facts that occurred that night. By including references like "skinhead paraphernalia" and labeling Robida as this type of person, the reporter is potentially putting the station at risk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteIt's good that you looked at this story carefully. Crime stories are often candidates for libel cases, because any accusation of a crime is defamatory on its face, and because most crime reporting happens after an accusation but before a conviction, when the suspect should be presumed innocent.
You're right that the headline can be confusing. Its structure also gives us a clue that this is an update story, providing the latest news on the suspect. Your suggestion to begin the head with "Gay bar attacked..." would make sense for the initial, breaking story. Here, it appears the station is trying to add new details to a story people are already familiar with. The confusing part is in the multiple modifiers. "Gay bar attack" are all used together to modify the word "suspect," and the structure is awkward enough to make it difficult to know where the modifiers end. If there was room, I'd try something like, "Suspect in gay bar attack used Nazi symbols."
As for the skinhead references, that term is definitely defamatory. In this case, though, there appears to be ample evidence that it's true. The story is careful not to say that the suspect considered himself a skinhead; it only says what was found in his room. And the fact that he had a Nazi symbol on his Internet profile pretty much locks up this information.
Had the story made unsupported accusations about the suspect's beliefs, it might have been more problematic. Here, accurately reporting what police found in his room is unlikely to cause trouble.