OCR Text |
Show Burne tt suit pro vokes tho ught The awarding of $1.6 million to Carol Burnett last week by a Los Angeles jury for libel by the National Enquirer brings two opposite, but equally important im-portant thoughts .to mind. I'm sure the' National Enquirer , lawyer will get up on his soapbox and shout about the First Amendment. Certainly, the public still has a right to know. Certainly individuals have a right to noj have falsehoods printed about them. Certainly newspapers make some mistakes, they will continue to. Hopefully, they will not be intentional or malicious. Somewhere in that huge media blitz the average citizen receives every day there is a great amount of truth, with vjry little error or bias. That is the service that newspapers provide; those are the rights that the First Amendment guarantees. 4(W BRUCE sides of the news, good and bad. It is its duty to take hard editorial stands when injustice is being done. The important criterion is that what is said be the truth. , Afterall, outside of elected and appointed ap-pointed officials, the newspaper reporter ' is probably more informed about the workings of public bodies and public people than anybody else. But the National Enquirer-Carol Burnett decision only adds to my conviction that 'good' journalism is also true, not libelous or unfair, and, I hasten to add, the vast majority of journalism is 'good'. Newspapers have become a . scapegoat because of stories such as the one published in the Enquirer about , Ms. Burnett. They are consistently being told that what they print is inaccurate and biased. However, the i majority isn't. ' , The First Amendment is certainly 'valuable, and there are many abuses of its guaranteed rights by public bodies; however, Watergate spawned a whole generation of journalists who, at times, took First Amendment rights and stretched them to the point they snapped. The huge settlement granted Ms. Burnett is 1 some evidence that they have gone too far. I'm sure some people will cheer that the press finally got what it deserved. But enough is enough is enough from both sides. As a journalist, I find two things important about the decision. First, newspapers and magazines' don't have the right to libel anyone. (Remember that libel must include knowing and malicious intent.) Second, newspapers, although not perfect, still provide a valuable service. to the community. . The first thought, from a journalist who himself has written things that don't show people in the best light, may seem paradoxical. However, I hasten to add that one duty of a newspaper is to publish both |