| ABOUT ME | ||
Socratics
Socratic Law Issue 2
Mass Communication Law
09/10/06
Evidently, falsity can have many different meanings in defamation law, depending on the context of the case. Statements can have minor errors or discrepancies, but still, they may not be considered to be false if the gist of the statement is accurate. On the other hand, if the material is not at least substantially true, then it is false.
Statements within an article or report can appear to be correct, but can become false, due to the use of implication, exaggeration, and innuendo. In broadcasting, this is truly dangerous. What you say, can take on so many different meanings, depending on the way that you say it.
In “Texas Beef Group v. Oprah Winfrey,” the popular talk-show host was sued by a group of Texas cattlemen for remarks made about “Mad Cow” disease. The Texas Beef Group claimed that the show had intentionally edited the information, creating false exaggerations. The plaintiffs added that Winfrey’s well documented influence on her millions of viewers caused markets to crash, and damages were suffered because of this.
The federal trial court ruled for the defense, saying that the plaintiffs had not proven that knowingly false statements had been made.
In another case, a Washington D.C., television station was sued by a man claiming that he had been held to libel by the station. The man said, that he had been identified during a broadcast that showed several people walking along a sidewalk, while the news anchor was saying, “For the 20 million Americans who have herpes…” By showing his picture, alongside the remarks about herpes, the station was implying that he was one of the 20 million Americans with herpes. He won the case, proving that he did not have herpes, and that the false comment had defamed him.