Actions AGAINST television station "on your side"

[zigzag930]

In Florida, I need to identify possible actions against a television station's "On your side" consumer advocate group for "spinning" its television reports to make my company look like it acted improperly.

Headlines of "Rip-off" and other damaging statements have been aired by the TV station, although they are clever enough to not make the claims themselves. By using the consumers "claims", this station manages to spin their reports to make our company come out looking like they are dis-honest.

As the owner of the company under attack, I had advised the reporter that this matter was before the court, and would be decided in a proper judiciary manner. I stated to the reporter, that TV is not the correct venue for judgement of this case and that reporting on television, in advance of a court hearing that was already scheduled, might be damaging to the case.

However, this particular TV station has one of the lowest ratings overall quality ratings and needs sensationalism to keep their class of viewers at bay. They ran the report as I expected and we are already receiving questions from clients.

I would like to know if anyone has any ideas on how to 1) stop this from happening, 2) hold the TV station responsible for airing a one sided report, 3) determine what damages are attributable

 

[swalsh411]

It is perfectly legal for them to report on pending court cases. This happens all the time. There is no law that says they cannot be one-sided or ever report on your side of the story. As long as they did not flat out lie you have no case. If you have good relationships with your customers they should understand exactly what is going on. (i.e. sensationalized one-sided "news"). You really have to be an idiot to just believe whatever you hear on the news without questioning it. Are your customers idiots?

 

[zigzag930]

That was what I expected to hear. They can pretty much say (or omit) whatever they want as long as they do not intentionally lie.

I did not know if the pending court case had any bearing on the matter, but suspected it did not.

I will play their game. I have now uncovered quite interesting information about the reporter working for them, including felony arrests, etc. I may have to make some news of my own.

 

[swalsh411]

That's the worst thing you could do. Take the high road and ignore it. This type of "reporting" fades from memory very quickly. By "playing their game" you are making yourself look bad and giving them credibility. You really think you're going to come out looking better?

And an arrest doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, just like a pending court case against a business doesn't mean the business has done anything wrong. Talk about being a hypocrite.

 

[Zigner]

I will play their game. I have now uncovered quite interesting information about the reporter working for them, including felony arrests, etc. I may have to make some news of my own.

And, you would likely be opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

 

[zigzag930]

In the end I have always taken the high road and memory of this stuff does tend to fade fast. To that I agree.

I have explained this matter to my entire staff, so that they can deal with it in an intelligent fashion when speaking with our clients.

However: Zigner, how could you see this opening me up to a lawsuit? The man was charged with six felony counts and was convicted. Are you suggesting that I can not state the facts? How is it thatl I could be liable for telling anyone what he did? After all it's public information? And - isn't in the public's best interest to know that who they are listening to (presumably the voice of truth) may not be the "holy" source of information that he portrays.

This guy is a wreckless creep that has been in trouble with other papers, in other areas. He's been sued before by the police department, etc. This is the 2nd time he's done this to us. I agree with taking the high road - but at the same time, need to prevent re-occurrence of this type incident.

J

 

[xylene]

No one cares about TV news anymore.

 

[swalsh411]

Actually I think a lot of people would be more inclined to watch a reporter with a sordid past. Why would you think a criminal record would make somebody less popular as a reporter?

 

[zigzag930]

swalsh: you are probably right about making him more interesting.

So to get back to the original question regarding possible actions:
1) I see that Florida SC has ruled that "false light" actions will not be heard, however
2) "Defamation by implication" is a valid action and might be applicable in this matter.

Any thoughts?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Any thoughts?

Defamation actions are very expensive. Typically the high end of five figures.

Reporters are fiercely protective of their rights under the first amendment. I believe they often abuse these rights, but there's not much to be done about it.

 

[zigzag930]

Well Steve, if we all just let them continue to do what they have been doing, we're just as much a part of the problem. I am not built that way, and will invest my time and efforts to see what is possible. Not a crusade, but to allow those that speak from a perceived position of "knowledge" should not mislead the poor dumb-folk.

I do not intend to hire legal counsel up front or I would not be on this forum. I have been in court many times over the years and feel I can hold me own. What I was needing was any advice on what action might be appropriate.

I think the d by i action sounds like the right way to go. I need to find some cases that have been filed and read the complaints, so I can model mine appropriately. Hope to find some good advice here.

Thanks to all
J

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I need to find some cases that have been filed

Start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

That's the case that set new standards for suing a 'media defendant'.

 

[zigzag930]

Steve, that case is 50 years old. While it set some precedents I need something more current and hopefully more specific to FL.

 

[davew128]

Steve, that case is 50 years old. While it set some precedents I need something more current and hopefully more specific to FL.

It was a Federal court case.....

 

[Zigner]

Yeah, this guy's gonna get chewed up and spit out.