This case study should be entitled “why lawyers are paid well.” There is so much going on and none of these issues are totally black and white. They seem black and white at first but after another look, it becomes a grayer area.
Libel requires that there was a statement of fact that is published that is of and concerning the plaintiff that is defamatory that is false that causes damage or harm and for which the defendant is at fault (Trager, Ross & Reynolds, 2018, p. 150). When Julia called Brian Makeaname everything she told him was slander because it was true and she knew it was not true. Once Makeaname wrote down her story and showed it to someone else it counts as being published. He is already biased toward the school and the football program it would seem since he had already planned to use her story into an expose of the way that coaches cover for their players. Makeaname was also reckless by not trying to corroborate her story with anyone else. He should have been skeptical when she declined to name any of the other women, players, or report it to the police.
Makeaname could have protected himself from being sued for libel if he had had her report it to the police and then reported on the police report instead of just trusting Julia’s word. If Makeaname had tried to corroborate what Julia said with the police or even just asked if there were other cases like Julia’s he would have found out that she had made three accusations that were proven false before.
Makeaname stated a fact: Lynn Lear was gang-raped by eight guys that belong to the football team and the fraternity. The story was published and printed by Big Deal Mag. The article was of and concerning the school, the players whose names were printed, and the coaches accused of covering up for the players.
The statement was defamatory because it was false communication that harms another’s reputation and subjects him or her to ridicule and scorn (Trager, Ross & Reynolds, 2018, p. 156). The statement was later proven to be false and Makeaname did not even try to double check Julia’s story.
The story caused real harm. It caused the 20 players that were listed to be expelled, the coaches had secret job offers withdrawn and the school lost $2 million in funding and support of the university and its athletic programs. The members of the fraternity and football team could also claim emotional distress depending on what state they’re in. Since they were kicked out of school and probably are behind on their path to graduation they could have a pretty good case against Big Deal Mag since the story was the proximate cause of their expulsion. 20 students were named but only eight were implicated in the story but it does not say which eight students so all 20 could sue Big Deal Mag saying that they were suggested as a suspect for gang rape which damaged their reputation and caused them to be expelled from college. College is expensive and they most likely were not refunded because they were expelled so in addition to the emotional distress they faced they also lost money by paying for classes they could not finish.
It could be argued that since Julia Nome was given a pseudonym and the scenario she described did happen just not to her that it wasn’t libel. However, Makeaname would have to prove that he actually spoke to someone that experienced this. He could have asked the police if they had any reports of gang rapes on campus and reported on the police reports but he did not. He interviewed Julia and did not do much investigating outside of that.
The criteria for reckless disregard keep in mind the reliability of the source, the urgency of the story and the time available to check facts, the number of sources and the believability of the story (Trager, Reynolds & Ross, 2018, p. 170). Makeaname was not publishing a time urgent story. He had time to check the information before it was published but he chose not to. Julia Nome was not a trustworthy source. Even though he was friends with her and probably knew her for many years she told the police three different stories that were all proved to be false. Makeaname also only used one source. He only used Julia Nome. He could have tried to find other sources on his own or talk to the police about it but he chose not to. He should have had reservations about publishing this story since Nome wanted to be published under a pseudonym but still “feared retribution.”
He should have been a little skeptical about publishing an article with really large accusations like this with one source when the story was so radical. Gang rape seems like something that happens on TV. A good rule of thumb is if it could be the plot of a “Law & Order” episode then the story requires multiple sources and double and triple checking of facts. The editors of Big Deal Mag also should have made Makeaname double check his facts and add more sources. It’s dangerous to post a one source story that involves accusations because if one person is lying then the whole story is false. By adding in at least two other sources helps protect the reporter, the publication and the parties involved in the story as well.
Michael Mater later wrote a similar story for Little Big Town Mag six months after Brian Makeaname’s story was published. Makeaname did his due diligence and corroborated stories with the police. Mater could not be sued for libel because he published facts that were corroborated by police and so he cannot be proved to have a reckless disregard for the truth like Makeaname. Mater learns that his police sources have obtained a search warrant for the coaches’ offices and the fraternity house. Mater jumped at the chance and took some photos. Mater should not have gone in with the police officers because now he can be sued for trespassing. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect the right of the press to trespass (Trager, Ross & Reynolds, 2018, p. 311). People have a right to know the news but they also have a right to privacy. The boys in the Fraternity house had a reasonable expectation of privacy because that is their home. The search warrant also did not protect Mater it only protected the police officers entering the area. The presence of the reporter does not serve any purpose and there are other legal ways to gather news. They could have asked to see the warrant to report on what was being searched instead of trespassing to take photos. Since the photos were obtained illegally the fraternity brothers and the coaches could sue Little Big Town Mag. The reporter being there is a separate unauthorized intrusion; the warrant only extends the right to lawfully enter and search to law enforcement, not the press. In Wilson v. Layne, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that inviting a reporter to execute a search with law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment to the constitution (Trager, Ross & Reynolds, 2018, p. 311). The protections ride-alongs typically provide like preventing abuse, improve news reporting of police, or protect suspects is too far removed from a reasonable search to override someone’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The University could prove that these two stories damaged the reputation of the university because after the publication of the stories the university lost $2 million in funds and donations and this would create a large enough reason for the university to want to sue for damages. They would have a pretty good case because the reporters did not do their job correctly.
This case has a lot of issues surrounding libel and newsgathering. If the reporters had just followed generally good news practices they could have protected themselves and their publications from lawsuits from the university, the alleged rapists, and the coaches that were accused of covering for their athletes. However, since Mater trespassed and Makeaname published a libelous story with a reckless disregard for facts they left themselves open for lawsuits.
Bibliography
Trager, R., Ross, S. D., & Reynolds, A. (2018). The law of journalism and mass communication. Thousand
Oaks, CA: CQ Press.