News-media roundup: Washington state helps local media; States Newsroom opens its 33rd outlet there . . .

Rob Manch of WFMZ-TV in Allentown, Pa., investigated a coal-mine fire. See below. (WFMZ image via Poynter)

Washington’s legislature has approved $2.4 million over two years to support eight journalists a year, paid $55,000 each, through a fellowship program to be run by Washington State University," Rebuild Local News reports. "Half of the fellows will be graduates of the university. Crucial program details on how the fellowships and participating newsrooms will be chosen, and by whom, are still being drafted. Gov. Jay Inslee also signed a provision eliminating the “the business and operations” tax for newspapers for 10 years. The bill did not benefit digital-only news sites unless they once printed a newspaper."

•

States Newsroom, the largest network of state-based nonprofit news outlets, has launched the Washington State Standard as its 33rd outlet. It has content-sharing agreements with independent newsrooms in 10 additional states. The editor in chief will be Bill Lucia, former executive editor of Route Fifty, an online news journal that covers trends, challenges and emerging issues in states and localities.

•

America's Newspapers, a trade association, has released what it calls "the first national research project dedicated to how readers consume local news and advertising in nearly a decade." Among the findings: Only 22% of readers are 65 or older, and 71% have lived in the community for more than five years. Length of residency has long been a predictor of newspaper readership.

•

Amaris Castillo of The Poynter Institute reports how Rob Manch and Kaylee Lindenmuth of WFMZ-TV in Allentown, Pennsylvania, investigated and reported on one of the state's many underground coal-mine fires. “Towns like Shenandoah and Centralia tend to get forgotten in the state, and in the national discourse,” Manch told Castillo. “And someone’s gotta be their voice, right? Someone’s got to talk about things that affect them.”

•

A recent survey from More in Common and the American Press Institute 

Accentuate the positive: "U.K.-based newsletter The Know has 50,000 subscribers, mainly women, with a 46% open rate and an audience that is growing 10% each month," the American Press Institute reports. "Chief executive Lynn Anderson Clark says her goal with the daily newsletter is to combat news avoidance. Each email starts with a positive news story, followed by coverage of top stories written in a way that won’t leave readers despondent. For example, when covering the February earthquake in Syria and Turkey, the newsletter focused on how the world rallied around to help instead of death tolls. The Know also has a referral rewards program that awards increasingly generous gifts the more a reader invites friends."

•

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' "push to rewrite defamation law and challenge press rights failed to advance beyond a committee vote" in the Florida Legislature, The Washington Post reports. "Opposition came from an unexpected sector: conservative media and lawmakers. When it came to backing what First Amendment experts and journalists called a radical rewriting of press freedom laws, DeSantis-friendly outlets responded with a rare show of resistance from media companies that by and large support the governor’s agenda."

Fox News hosts seem to make the case that they acted with malice, Mississippi Press Association executive opines

By Layne Bruce

The first time I recall hearing the phrase “absence of malice” was from a film of that title released in 1981 starring Paul Newman and Sally Field.

Newman plays a liquor wholesaler falsely accused in the disappearance of a local union leader and whose life is wrecked when the news hits the papers. Field is the reporter who’s manipulated by a corrupt district attorney who wants to squeeze Newman for information about another case.

It’s a convoluted work of fiction, but it’s one of my favorite movies about journalism and what can go wrong when people motivated by careerism forget that their actions can have very real and dramatic consequences for many people around them.

Layne Bruce

After studying journalism in college, I came to understand “absence of malice” as a legal term that also represents an incredibly high burden of proof that must be met by litigants who claim they’ve been defamed by the press.

When a plaintiff sues a media outlet for defamation, they must prove that whatever inaccuracies the outlet reported were borne of actual malicious intent. In other words, the defendants in such cases must act intentionally and spread false information knowingly.

That must be provable. It’s difficult to do, and it’s one of the cornerstone protections of freedom of the press in this country.

But if we were going to write a screenplay based on the defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems for the reporting of false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, it wouldn’t be a drama; it would have to be a farce. It seems like a black comedy of lies, hubris, and gaslighting.

A cursory review of text messages entered into the record and recently made public between Fox News personnel leaves little doubt the producers and hosts knew claims against Dominion that aired repeatedly on the network and sister channel Fox Business were bogus.

Marquee hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and others engaged in numerous conversations about the veracity of the claims against Dominion and even the sanity of the lawyers pressing the conspiracy theories on air and in daily press conferences.

“No serious lawyer could believe what they were saying,” Ingraham says in the text messages. “Sidney Powell is a bit nuts,” she wrote in another. That did not keep the network from repeatedly putting Powell, a key lawyer at the center of the scandal, on air to regurgitate nonsense about alleged fraud, krakens, and other incoherent conspiracy theories.

That Fox News allowed this, and in so doing spread the toxicity to millions of viewers daily, goes a long way to addressing a heretofore almost unattainable bar of proving malice.

And by putting their private thoughts into texts while engaging in the apparent fiction of “just asking questions” on air, the hosts have exposed the network to a potentially landmark—and hugely expensive—judgment against it.

They’ve single-handedly lowered the bar for proving malice.

Wall Street Journal columnist Bill Galston on The Bulwark’s “Beg to Differ” podcast laid out four points necessary to prove malicious intent and reckless disregard to a jury:

• A false statement purported to be fact. The text messages prove network personnel knew the claims of voter fraud by Dominion were bogus.
• Publication or communication of the false statement to a third party. Fox hosts did this nightly for weeks to viewers numbering in the millions.
• Fault amounting to “at least negligence.” Galston contends the repetition of falsehoods over network air was not just reckless disregard, but a “deliberate lie” motivated by fear the network would alienate its audience if it debunked the conspiracies.
• Damages must be sustained to the reputation of the plaintiff. This may the easiest claim to prove. How many of us had heard of Dominion as a company before it was dragged into the contrived effort to throw the 2020 election results into doubt?

“If this isn’t a slam dunk case after the revelations that came out because of the (disclosure of the text messages), I don’t know what is,” Galston concluded.

This is by no means the first time Fox News’ dirty laundry has been aired in public. But it is for sure the first time the network has been so nakedly exposed to potential damages that might have a lasting effect on its business practices.

If malice has not been proven in this case, I’m with Galston—I’m not sure it could ever be proved. Whatever the ultimate decision, the case will be taught in future media law classes.

And I can’t wait to see the movie.

Layne Bruce, a former journalist, is executive director of the Mississippi Press Association. His email address is lbruce@mspress.org.

Failed libel suit by ex-police officer it probed costs rural Iowa weekly big legal bills and lost ads, so it seeks donations

Doug Burns

An award-winning twice-weekly newspaper in rural Iowa is in financial trouble after a failed libel lawsuit drained its coffers. Reporter Jared Strong and co-owner Doug Burns of the Carroll Times Herald spent more than two months investigating a tip that police officer Jacob Smith was having an inappropriate relationship with teenage girls. Just before they published their story in July 2017, Smith resigned—and immediately filed a libel lawsuit, Meagan Flynn reports for The Washington Post.

A judge dismissed the suit in 2018, but the paper's legal expenses were huge. Burns, whose family has owned the paper since 1944, created a GoFundMe page seeking $140,000 to cover expenses. Flynn writes, "In an interview Wednesday, Burns said the $140,000 represents expenses not covered by libel insurance as well as lost advertising revenue and subscribers, who doubted the paper’s reporting on Smith."

The Times Herald's troubles show why many rural papers avoid doing such stories. "Standing up to the patriarchy, particularly in a rural reach of the nation, and especially now, is a financially perilous choice, one fraught with pressures from a host of sources and power centers, many of whom sought to kill the story and then retaliated against the newspaper," Burns wrote on the GoFundMe page. "We published the stories, and would again, but the legal bills and other expenses and losses, even after our libel insurance, jeopardize the local ownership of the newspaper."

Burns and his staff are no strangers to gutsy reporting. The Times Herald received plenty of pushback in the town of 10,000 after covering a school superintendent who sent a sexually suggestive email to a teacher and then collected a large salary for months while on leave. Some of the blowback bordered on calls for violence to the reporters, but rural journalists owe it to their readers to keep local leaders accountable, Burns wrote in an editorial: "We think you deserve better."

The GoFundMe page had raised $44,127 as of 5:30 p.m. ET Thursday. "I am donating, and I encourage all supporters of good rural journalism to do likewise," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, publisher of The Rural Blog. "It's more difficult to do good journalism in rural areas, especially accountability journalism, and those who take the risks often associated with that need the public's support."

UPDATE, Oct. 11: Burns writes on the GoFundMe page, "I had a tearful interaction Friday with a talented young reporter who can remain on our staff as a result of this funding. This reporter produces excellent accountability journalism and asked me for an expanded role in that regard. This not only boosts our paper but benefits others as the reporter has an enormously promising career and will no doubt excel at other newspapers someday." Just before noon Central Time on Oct. 11, $70,038 had been raised, just over half the goal.

Beef processor's 'pink slime' lawsuit against ABC is settled with a confidential agreement

(National Public Radio photo)

ABC News and Beef Products Inc. on Wednesday settled a $5.7 billion lawsuit over 2012 news reports on a beef product the news outlet dubbed "pink slime."

The terms of the settlement, which ended a trial in a small town in South Dakota, are confidential, reports Kate Taylor of Business Insider.

Dan Webb, attorney for the beef firm, said the said the settlement "vindicated" the company and its "lean finely textured beef," the beef product at the center of the "pink slime" controversy. "They ignored the proper name," Webb said. "When you have a major news organization that is calling the product 'slime,' witnesses will say they can't imagine anything worse. It connotes something disgusting, inedible."

The beef company had to close three plants and lay off 700 workers because of backlash from the reports, Taylor reports. "ABC's attorney argued that the 'pink slime' reports brought to light that BPI and other ground-beef producers were using a beef product that most customers were unaware they were eating," she writes.

'Pink slime' defamation trial of ABC News begins in South Dakota town of 2,000

Photo by Tim Hynds, Sioux City Journal

The trial of ABC News for its  2012 "pink slime" reports on beef, which is poised to be the biggest defamation trial in U.S. history, began Monday "in Elk Point, S.D., a town with a population of just 2,000," Eriq Gardner writes for The Hollywood Reporter.

ABC reported on the product labeled "lean finely textured beef" and dubbed "pink slime" by critics. With billions of dollars on the line, representatives of Beef Products Inc. told jurors that the reports were to blame for the loss of 75 percent of its business. "Those who attended Monday heard two vastly different stories," Gardner reports. "BPI's was one of entrepreneurship and destruction. ABC's was about politics and secrecy."

BPI attorney Dan Webb said ABC's use of the term "pink slime" shows a preconceived negative image that ABC wished to portray to the public, 350 times over the course of the series of reports. "They ignored the proper name," said Webb. "When you have a major news organization that is calling the product 'slime,' witnesses will say they can't imagine anything worse. It connotes something disgusting, inedible."

Webb acknowledged that the term came from a 2002 email by Dr. Gerald Zirnstein, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist interviewed by ABC, "but Webb asserted that the 'pink slime' term got 'minimal coverage' before ABC repeated it ad nauseum on air and to BPI's supermarket customers when reporters at the network aimed to figure out who was carrying the product," Gardner reports. Because a judge deemed BPI to be a "public figure," the group also has to demonstrate "actual malice" with reckless disregard for the truth to win damages, Gardner notes.

ABC attorney Dane Butswinkas said BPI "kept the process behind its meat product secret for years and had continually failed until recently to gain federal regulators' coveted approval that would enable LFTB to be mixed and sold in ground beef," reports Nick Hytrek of the Sioux City Journal. Butswinkas said, "The evidence will show the other side of the story is one BPI did not want told. The secret ingredient is secrecy."

Butswinkas cited BPI internal documents that illustrated problems with the product and "recounted the years-long process where the USDA was bombarded with lobbying letters and how Joann Smith, the former undersecretary of agriculture at the time, would go on to work for BPI's main supplier," Gardner reports. "None of this was illegal," Butswinkas said. "Just another day in the swamp. Politics as usual."

Newspaper group chief sets Trump straight on libel

Since businessman Donald Trump appears likely to be the Republican nominee for president, and hates the news media so much that he has said he will change libel laws to make it easier to sure journalists and their employers, it might be a good idea for them to explain to their readers, viewers and listeners just what the rules of libel are.

David Chavern, president and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, did that in a column circulated to newspapers and their trade associations. He surely wants it reprinted as much as possible, and it's only 344 words, so here it is:

Donald Trump said [recently], “I'm gonna open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible, false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” The specific media outlets he mentioned were The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The first thing to understand is that under the landmark Supreme Court case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, it was determined that news organizations could be found liable when they deliberately publish false information. The specific standard is “actual malice.” So if Mr. Trump wants to address media organizations that “write purposely negative and horrible, false articles” then the law is already established as to his rights to do that.
But we all know that Mr. Trump isn't interested in legalities in this case. He is clearly just trying to intimidate news organizations and bully them in providing more positive coverage of him and his candidacy for president. He should pick a different target. Newspapers have dealt with more intimidating figures than Mr. Trump.
Newspapers, actually, have a long, long history of responsibly speaking truth in the face of great power. One could think of Watergate or the Oscar-winning movie “Spotlight” for some better-known examples. Throughout history, those in power have complained about newspaper reporting when it didn't meet their agenda and the number of instances where the reporting has been found to be on target has vastly out-weighed any circumstances where it wasn't. The fact is that our society relies upon the newspaper industry to be a consistent, challenging voice to the wealthy and powerful -- and newspapers have a long history of carrying out that mandate with care and a deep sense of responsibility.
Newspapers have successfully stood up to sitting presidents, vast religious organizations, governors, mayors and immensely powerful corporations, among many others. If Mr. Trump wants to try to bully news organizations into providing reporting that he likes, then he will have to do a whole lot better than making weak, misguided promises about changes to a law that aren't needed in the first place.