Case's verdict shows truth no certain shield for media

[KG]

Journalists are worried after the facts don't save a Pensacola newspaper from losing a "false light" suit.
By STEPHEN NOHLGREN, Times Staff Writer
Published January 4, 2004

It's the first principle journalists learn about staving off lawsuits: Stick to the facts, stick to what you can prove. People might get angry, but the truth will prevail in court.

That maxim now is being tested by a stray pellet of buckshot.

Last month, a jury awarded $18.28-million to former road paver Joe Anderson Jr., finding that the Pensacola News Journal portrayed him in a false light when, in a story about political influence, it delved into his wife's shooting death.

The story's facts were all true, even Anderson's attorneys conceded as much. But the jury found that the paper strung those facts together in a malicious manner, leaving the impression that Anderson killed his wife.

"The story made him sound like he was a cold-blooded killer," said Joe Ritchie, a journalism professor at Florida A&M University who was hired as an expert witness for Anderson. "It literally leapt out at me when I was first shown the story. I thought, "Whoa, this guy must be a bad guy.' "

The verdict has flabbergasted attorneys for newspapers. Among other things, the story plainly stated that law enforcement officials "determined the shooting was a hunting accident."

How could a paper be punished after printing that?

MORE>>> http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2004/01/04/State/Case_s_verdict_shows_.shtml