In response to my Nov. 22 posting, Online Publishers Off the Hook for Libelous Comments, Court Says, I received an interesting e-mail from a reporter at a daily U.S. newspaper.
This reporter, who prefers to remain anonymous (although I have verified this person's identity), asks: "I wonder how the California ruling affects the idea of reverse publishing -- that is, taking the comments from our site and running them in the newspaper. Usually these are anonymous, ad hominem attacks on people or institutions. ...Our paper has done this a few times, and I'm never excited about it. But perhaps the legality of doing so is cleared a bit by this ruling."
Hmmm... Since the paper this reporter works for is not in California, I suspect that recent ruling may not yet have a direct bearing in this instance. However I'd love to hear what a media lawyer would have to say about that.
I must admit: I find it disturbing that a news organization would republish anonymous ad hominem attacks -- whether originating on their site, elsewhere online, or from any source. Aside from the legalities of libel and intellectual property, I think that practice could easily undermine a news organization's journalistic credibility and reputation for responsibility.
How widespread is this phenomenon? I have no clue -- but I'd like to find out.
If you know of news organizations which republish (print or broadcast) anonymous criticisms of named people or organizations posted to their sites, please comment below. What do you think of this practice?
Well, really, when you think about it, is printing an...
