• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Bias Newspaper Article

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

holland10102

New member
Writing from Georgia with a question...

I have a friend who went through a difficult divorce in which his wife left him for another man. In a power-grab move his ex-wife leveled accusations of child cruelty that brought SWAT to his house where they arrested him and charged him with Child Cruelty. The whole thing was initiated by a malevolent-mother/ex-wife accusation, who was then successful in getting him to surrender his parental rights and plead guilty to the charges to avoid prosecution with the possibility of prison time. The ex-wife has continued to manipulate areas of his life from a distance through meddling with employers, romantic interests, etc. while the man has tried to move on and abided by no-contact and other stipulations.

My question... There were a few articles published by local papers about the "big" SWAT take down in which he calmly walked out of his house to authorities, and there was a follow-up article published once the prosecutor penned the deal taking his parental rights away. The articles include disparaging comments from the ex-wife and her current husband saying they were scared of him, and the prosecutor saying she suspected he was "prone to violent outbursts, possibly due to steroid use" which was never substantiated or even a part of the accusation or case proceedings.

The articles also included comments from the DA office, and defense attorney but my friend was not ever given an opportunity to respond to the accusations in the same medium/newspaper and the initial write up seems like a lot of speculation that wasn't all substantiated and the follow-up piece omits details that give an untrue or incomplete picture of my friend .

Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
 


Just Blue

Senior Member
Writing from Georgia with a question...

I have a friend who went through a difficult divorce in which his wife left him for another man. In a power-grab move his ex-wife leveled accusations of child cruelty that brought SWAT to his house where they arrested him and charged him with Child Cruelty. The whole thing was initiated by a malevolent-mother/ex-wife accusation, who was then successful in getting him to surrender his parental rights and plead guilty to the charges to avoid prosecution with the possibility of prison time. The ex-wife has continued to manipulate areas of his life from a distance through meddling with employers, romantic interests, etc. while the man has tried to move on and abided by no-contact and other stipulations.

My question... There were a few articles published by local papers about the "big" SWAT take down in which he calmly walked out of his house to authorities, and there was a follow-up article published once the prosecutor penned the deal taking his parental rights away. The articles include disparaging comments from the ex-wife and her current husband saying they were scared of him, and the prosecutor saying she suspected he was "prone to violent outbursts, possibly due to steroid use" which was never substantiated or even a part of the accusation or case proceedings.

The articles also included comments from the DA office, and defense attorney but my friend was not ever given an opportunity to respond to the accusations in the same medium/newspaper and the initial write up seems like a lot of speculation that wasn't all substantiated and the follow-up piece omits details that give an untrue or incomplete picture of my friend .

Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
How long ago did this happen?
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Writing from Georgia with a question...

I have a friend who went through a difficult divorce in which his wife left him for another man. In a power-grab move his ex-wife leveled accusations of child cruelty that brought SWAT to his house where they arrested him and charged him with Child Cruelty. The whole thing was initiated by a malevolent-mother/ex-wife accusation, who was then successful in getting him to surrender his parental rights and plead guilty to the charges to avoid prosecution with the possibility of prison time. The ex-wife has continued to manipulate areas of his life from a distance through meddling with employers, romantic interests, etc. while the man has tried to move on and abided by no-contact and other stipulations.

My question... There were a few articles published by local papers about the "big" SWAT take down in which he calmly walked out of his house to authorities, and there was a follow-up article published once the prosecutor penned the deal taking his parental rights away. The articles include disparaging comments from the ex-wife and her current husband saying they were scared of him, and the prosecutor saying she suspected he was "prone to violent outbursts, possibly due to steroid use" which was never substantiated or even a part of the accusation or case proceedings.

The articles also included comments from the DA office, and defense attorney but my friend was not ever given an opportunity to respond to the accusations in the same medium/newspaper and the initial write up seems like a lot of speculation that wasn't all substantiated and the follow-up piece omits details that give an untrue or incomplete picture of my friend .

Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
Are you the man in questions girlfriend? Were you there during this situation?
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
Sure.

Your friend can hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against whoever he thinks is defaming him.

If you're asking will he be successful at it, beats me, but since he pled guilty and gave up his parental rights to avoid prison, I'm guessing not.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Writing from Georgia with a question...

I have a friend who went through a difficult divorce in which his wife left him for another man. In a power-grab move his ex-wife leveled accusations of child cruelty that brought SWAT to his house where they arrested him and charged him with Child Cruelty. The whole thing was initiated by a malevolent-mother/ex-wife accusation, who was then successful in getting him to surrender his parental rights and plead guilty to the charges to avoid prosecution with the possibility of prison time. The ex-wife has continued to manipulate areas of his life from a distance through meddling with employers, romantic interests, etc. while the man has tried to move on and abided by no-contact and other stipulations.

My question... There were a few articles published by local papers about the "big" SWAT take down in which he calmly walked out of his house to authorities, and there was a follow-up article published once the prosecutor penned the deal taking his parental rights away. The articles include disparaging comments from the ex-wife and her current husband saying they were scared of him, and the prosecutor saying she suspected he was "prone to violent outbursts, possibly due to steroid use" which was never substantiated or even a part of the accusation or case proceedings.

The articles also included comments from the DA office, and defense attorney but my friend was not ever given an opportunity to respond to the accusations in the same medium/newspaper and the initial write up seems like a lot of speculation that wasn't all substantiated and the follow-up piece omits details that give an untrue or incomplete picture of my friend .

Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
Your friend pleaded guilty. What was published appears to be supported.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Writing from Georgia with a question...

Is there any established protocol or recourse for navigating this type of issue?
First, since the guy is your friend there is almost certainly a bias on your part in favor of your friend. That's not a criticism; that's just stating human nature. If you weren't there you don't exactly what occurred and while it's natural to believe whatever version of this your friend told you, just bear in mind that it might not reflect what actually happened, even if your friend believes his version of events. If there was not at least sufficient evidence against him to establish probable he would not have taken a deal to "avoid prosecution with the possibility of prison time." So while you support your friend, keep your mind open to the possibility that the truth here might be somewhere in the middle between what he says and what his ex said. In my experience dealing with divorced couples that is the most common situation that I see.

That said, turning to your question about the news articles, the paper is free under the First Amendment to publish what it wishes. However, if the paper defames someone the defamed person may sue the paper for money damages. But understand that defamation means communicating a false statement of fact about one person to another that damages the person's reputation. Given that basic definition, you can see that true statements of fact are not defamatory. And since the statements must be factual statements, that means statements of opinion are also not defamatory. Your friend would have to carefully review the articles with an attorney who practices defamation law to determine if there was any defamation here and what money damages he might be able to win from that. Note that litigating defamation claims can run into many thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars, so unless the amount he could realistically expect to win is significantly above the cost it won't be worth doing.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Here is a look from a journalist's perspective, from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, at the "reporters privilege" and at Georgia's anti-SLAPP law, both of which make suing a newspaper a difficult task at best:

https://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/privilege/GA.pdf

https://www.rcfp.org/slapp-stick-fighting-frivolous-lawsuits-against-journalists/georgia

Your friend made a major mistake in pleading guilty to crimes he says he did not commit. The result of his guilty plea is that what is said about him in relation to the crimes can be considered true or substantially true. And truth - even without a reporter's privilege - is a solid defense to a claim of defamation.

Your friend can discuss his situation with an attorney in his area who is well-versed in defamation law to see if he has any legal action to pursue but, based on what you have said, it seems doubtful he has one against the newspaper and only slightly less doubtful he has one against his ex-wife.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
It is really not a good idea on this forum to publish real names.

People come to this forum seeking advice and information. They don't expect to leave the forum in a worse legal position than they were in before they visited, or leave having hurt the person they were hoping to help.

Publication of names or other identifying information can increase reputational injury.
 

holland10102

New member
Thank you all for your prompt and well-reasoned responses.

JUST BLUE, I didn't know the gentleman when this occurred in 2012, I have come to know him under amicable terms in the last year.

TAXING MATTERS, When I discovered the article it was quite a shock because he's a genuinely nice person, that's not to say that he didn't make a mistake, or have errors in judgment, I'm certainly bias as you suggest in that I've only heard his depiction of the events.

My friend was coming to terms with the sudden accidental death of a parent with whom he worked daily which occurred at work, in his presence in an accident, just 3 weeks before the ex-wife went to the DA with the accusations. He had picked up a lot of his parents belongings, including hunting weapons, which the ex-wife alerted the DA to which contributed to their decision to use SWAT and which is what caused a lot of the attention in getting the incident written up in the paper. Needless to say while sitting in jail awaiting a bond to be set he was bewildered with processing the loss of his parent, and now access to his children, and was threatened with the possibility of 20 years in prison. He was weak for his freedom and his attorney basically told him that the question before him was:

"did he want to spend money and energy trying to beat the accusations, and cause his children the pain of having to be drilled and prepped to testify by the state, with a chance that he may or may not be convicted and possibly spend time in prison, which would cause him to lose his home and belongings?"

OR

"did he want to keep his freedom, job, and ability to keep his house, money, etc. and accept the plea deal to surrender his parental rights?"

He accepted the deal.

When I've asked him about why he would plead guilty to something that wasn't true he said that its easy to say "I wouldn't ever admit to something untrue or that I hadn't done, especially when comfortably sitting within the confines of one's personal abode but when faced with the possibility of losing everything for a CHANCE of being found not guilty while sitting in a jail cell the question is somewhat turned on its head.

QUINCY, I really appreciate the resource on the anti-SLAPP law. There are true elements within the article as substantiated by his guilty plea but there are also some other details that are speculative. I think I'll take your advice and recommend that he have a defamation lawyer review the statements in the article.

His interest is solely in having the untrue elements of information removed from public view , not to "win" any money from the news company.
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
There are true elements within the article as substantiated by his guilty plea but there are also some other details that are speculative. I think I'll take your advice and recommend that he have a defamation lawyer review the statements in the article.

His interest is solely in having the untrue elements of information removed from public view , not to "win" any money from the news company.
The bar for winning any sort of defamation suit against the press is very high. Absent a showing of malice on the part of the new outlet it is almost impossible. Nothing in your post shows even the beginning of the bases of a suit against the news outlet.

And the chances of having them take down the article are somewhere between slim and none leaning on none.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The bar for winning any sort of defamation suit against the press is very high. Absent a showing of malice on the part of the new outlet it is almost impossible.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in line of cases starting with New York Times v. Sullivan that when a public figure (politician, government official, celebrity, etc) sues a newspaper for defamation the public figure must show the newspaper acted out of "actual malice" rather than simply being negligent. But that standard does not apply as matter of constitutional law when the plaintiff is a private person, i.e. not a public figure. States are, however, free to require malice even when the plaintiff is not private person, but most do not. Georgia falls in the majority of states that do not require malice when the plaintiff is a private person. Simple negligence will suffice.
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
Hence my wording that included "almost". But you are correct.

I still don't see negligence in this case as posed by the OP. Especially considering the friend pled guilty. And the fact that the friend's defense lawyer responded.
 

quincy

Senior Member
... "did he want to spend money and energy trying to beat the accusations, and cause his children the pain of having to be drilled and prepped to testify by the state, with a chance that he may or may not be convicted and possibly spend time in prison, which would cause him to lose his home and belongings?"

OR

"did he want to keep his freedom, job, and ability to keep his house, money, etc. and accept the plea deal to surrender his parental rights?"

QUINCY, I really appreciate the resource on the anti-SLAPP law. There are true elements within the article as substantiated by his guilty plea but there are also some other details that are speculative. I think I'll take your advice and recommend that he have a defamation lawyer review the statements in the article.

His interest is solely in having the untrue elements of information removed from public view , not to "win" any money from the news company.
There are all sorts of reasons why a person might plead guilty to a crime they did not commit so I understand that your friend might be innocent of the charges leveled against him to which he pleaded guilty. The Innocence Project, which assists prisoners in getting new trials, was born in part for this reason. Innocent people are sitting in prisons after confessing to crimes they did not commit.

I have a link somewhere to an interesting study done a few years ago on why people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. If I can locate it, I will post back.

It is a difficult task to get what a newspaper has published removed or redacted. Some newspapers will never do this.

Letters can be written to the editor and the publisher with a request for removal or redaction but, with no compelling evidence to show that what was published was erroneous, changes to a published article will not be made. The most that can be hoped for is that a newspaper will print a correction or print a rebuttable written by the one disputing the contents.

Your friend became a "public figure" unintentionally. He became the central figure in an incident of public interest. His standard of proof in pursuing a defamation action against the newspaper would be to show it acted with actual malice when publishing a story of the incident, the arrest, the charges and the pleading of guilt.

Actual malice is a high standard of proof. It requires not only that your friend show what was published was false but that what was published was knowingly false at the time of publication or was published without reasonable care taken to ascertain its truth or falsity - and that there was an intent to cause harm.

Your friend can get a clearer picture of where he stands in regard to a defamation claim after a defamation lawyer has had the opportunity to personally review the published articles and the police and court documents and the facts.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Your friend became a "public figure" unintentionally. He became the central figure in an incident of public interest. His standard of proof in pursuing a defamation action against the newspaper would be to show it acted with actual malice when publishing a story of the incident, the arrest, the charges and the pleading of guilt.
I'm not as confident as you that the friend became a public figure here. Perhaps he did, but I don't see it as being as obvious as you, at least without knowing more about the incident and the coverage surrounding it. Georgia law recognizes two sorts of public figure as a result of its interpretion of Supreme Court rulings. There are persons who are general public figures — person who in every aspect of their life are public figures. The Georgia Court of Appeals describes it this way:

A person is a general purpose public figure “only if he is a ‘celebrity[,]’ his name a ‘household word’ whose ideas and actions the public in fact follows with great interest.” Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, 627 F.2d 1287, 1292(III) (D.C.Cir.1980).

Riddle v. Golden Isle Broad., 275 Ga. App. 701, 704, 621 S.E.2d 822, 825 (2005). You look to the person's status before the alleged defamation occurred to determine if a person is a general purpose public figure. I'm willing to bet the friend did not have the kind of celebrity that would make him a general purpose public figure. Id. It sounds like you agree with that too.

You seem instead to be referring to a limited purpose public figure. For that, the court looks at the following:

A three-part analysis is used to determine whether an individual is a limited-purpose public figure. Under this analysis, a court must isolate the public controversy, examine the plaintiff's involvement in the controversy, and determine whether the alleged defamation was germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.

Ladner v. New World Commc'ns of Atlanta, Inc., 343 Ga. App. 449, 453, 806 S.E.2d 905, 911 (2017).

Under that test, the public controversy must be more than just something that was newsworthy. Instead, it had to be something that "resolution of the controversy will affect people who do not directly participate in it, the controversy is more than merely newsworthy and is of legitimate public concern. In short, if the issue was being debated publicly and if it had foreseeable and substantial ramifications for nonparticipants, it was a public controversy." Ladner v. New World Commc'ns of Atlanta, Inc., 343 Ga. App. 449, 453, 806 S.E.2d 905, 911 (2017).

I don't know that the event described by the OP falls into the category of a controversy that would affect those who did not directly participate in it and that would have foresessable and substantial ramifications for nonparticipants.

As to the second prong, the persons involvement in the controversy, that factor is met if the plaintiff "purposefully tries to influence the outcome of a public controversy or, because of his position in the controversy, could realistically be expected to have an impact on its resolution.” Id at 912. This is against tested before the defamation occurred. Well, before the news coverage that contained the alleged defamation the OP could not have expected to be in the spotlight and was not acting in a way to thrust himself into the spotlight with the incident that garnered the press attention.

In short, I have doubts that both the first and secong prongs would definitely be met here. Maybe after a review of all the facts they would be, but I'm not as certain as you appear to be on this.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top