Sure the Herald voice sounds shrill at times, but it still covers the fire and crime beat better than the Boston Globe.
And, as Keohane said, the Herald is a scrappier paper, more fervent to knock the big shots off their posts than the Globe.
About a year ago, the Herald lost a libel lawsuit to a judge, and then one of the paper's reporter's followed that judge to a racetrack in New York. (Sorry, this is way out of context and I don't have the links to support it yet)
Also, during a journalism conference, I heard from the Herald's lawyers that reporter had thrown out his notes, which would have been a crucial bit of evidence during the libel trial.
Anywho, here's a transcript of the judge's lawyer talking to Keith Olberman of MSNBC:
OLBERMANN: Tell her to get over it. Six words about a 14 year old rape victim attributed to a superior court judge by a Boston newspaper, then broadcast nationwide with righteous anger and calls of termination by Bill O‘Reilly. The outcry cost the judge his health and his career and put his life in danger, even though he never actually said anything of the sort. Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, the paper has been held responsible for libel.
So why isn‘t Bill-O likewise liable? Superior Court Judge Earnest Murphy (ph) won a two million dollar libel suit upheld now by the Massachusetts Supreme Court against the “Boston Herald,” and its reporter Dave Wedge, who not only falsely quoted the judge, but then served as stooge for Bill-O‘s on-air crusade.
In the words of the court ruling, quote, “the press is not free to publish false information about anyone, intending that it will cause a public furor, while knowingly, or in reckless disregard of, its falsity.”
A law was not only ignored by Mr. Wedge, but was also ignored and continues to be ignored by Bill O‘Reilly. Hence the reason why Mr. Wedge‘s appearance on The Factor in March 2002 actually became evidence at the trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Are you absolutely sure that Judge Murphy said that the rape victim should get over it?
DAVE WEDGE, “BOSTON HERALD”: Yes. He said—he made this comment to three lawyers. He knows he said it. Everybody else that knows this judge knows that he said it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Such an exchange prompting the Supreme Court to write that, quote, Wedge‘s comments on the O‘Reilly Factor were made with actual malice.
Joining me now, judge Murphy‘s trial counsel, Howard Cooper. Mr.
Cooper, thanks for your time.
HOWARD COOPER, TRIAL COUNSEL FOR JUDGE MURPHY: Good evening.
OLBERMANN: How important was Mr. Wedge‘s appearance on O‘Reilly‘s show to the success of your libel case?
COOPER: I actually think it was critically important and critically important to the jury. The story which was originally published in mid February of 2002 really was a local or at most a regional story about a judge‘s alleged intemperate and indeed, as portrayed, outrageous comments. When Mr. O‘Reilly go ahold of it, about two weeks after the initial publication, it really created not just a national furor, but really an international furor.
The judge received hate mail from overseas, from California. Mr.
O‘Reilly really picked up the ball and ran with it quite a bit.
OLBERMANN: Does Mr. O‘Reilly bear at least as much responsibility as Mr. Wedge, at least for those death threats? And to the degree that he‘s responsible for anything that happened to the judge, why was there no action pursued against him?
COOPER: Well, the original publication was by the “Boston Herald” and David Wedge, and as I‘m sure you‘re aware, the standard for bringing a public figure defamation claim is quite high. I think it‘s fair to say that the jury found Mr. O‘Reilly was responsible for republishing the statement and creating a situation which caused enormous damage to Judge Murphy. But again, that was attributable to the original publication by the “Boston Herald” and David Wedge.
When asked why wasn‘t he named as a party in the lawsuit, a decision really was made on a practical basis. You have someone who we thought would have welcomed the opportunity to continue to use his regular appearances before a national television audience to excoriate the judge and we didn‘t want to give him that opportunity. Yet, his television shows were a major presence in the courtroom.
OLBERMANN: A couple of quick factual questions, did O‘Reilly ever apologize to the judge?
COOPER: He has never apologized. He has never taken his reporting back. There is a very prominent lawyer up here in Boston by the name of Ed Ryan, who runs a committee for the Mass BAR Association designed to help judges protect themselves, because, after all, judges really can‘t respond publicly about pending cases. After the jury came back, Mr. Ryan made a personal demand on the O‘Reilly Factor that they correct the reporting and that he allowed to go on and assist in that effort.
He never heard from them. More recently, in May of this year, when the Supreme judicial court unanimously affirmed the jury verdict, which by that time was about 3.4 million dollars, with interest, Mr. Ryan again reached out to the “O‘Reilly Facto,” in writing, through email, and said I really want you to correct the story and I‘m prepared to go on and help you do that.
I spoke with Mr. Ryan this afternoon. He confirms that he still is waiting to hear from the “O‘Reilly Factor.” And it‘s a shame, because an apology is in order here.
OLBERMANN: With the increasing threats of violence against judges in general, is there not—maybe it‘s not a legal case, maybe it‘s not a private suite, but the crusade against a judge for saying something controversial that he never said, doesn‘t that rise to a more deplorable crime than just libel? Doesn‘t it border on reckless endangerment?
COOPER: Well, let me say this: these stories, these campaigns have real consequences for real people. Judge Murphy experienced having death threats slipped under the door of his judicial chambers, where he was by himself, without protection. Somebody took the front page of the “Boston Herald,” drew a target on his forehead in red ink, and said get over it, you bastard, you‘re dead. And someone really needs to think through the accuracy of their reporting before launching one of these campaigns.
OLBERMANN: Well, you‘re not obviously going to get that from Bill O‘Reilly. So, on behalf of the television industry, you can please send the judge my apologies. I think that‘s not going to do him much good, but it‘s the best we can do under the circumstances?
COOPER: It‘s a good start.
OLBERMANN: Howard Cooper, the trial counsel for Judge Earnest Murphy, thanks for joining us tonight.
COOPER: Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment