Angel Food Ministries, a nonprofit organization that distributes meals to the needy, has recently found themselves in the spotlight—but not for their charitable contributions to society. The group has been subject to FBI searches and the treasurer was accused of sexual harassment. The AJC’s coverage of the nonprofit provides a textbook example on avoiding libel while covering sensitive situations.
The first article reports on two search warrants the FBI served on Angel Food ministries. The second graph has a statement from a FBI declining to give the reason for the searches, followed two graphs later by an explanation that a call to the organization was not returned. After giving a brief background on the nonprofit and how it was started, there is a statement from a woman who claimed her church didn’t get their designated percentage from food sales.
Throughout the article, the writer uses facts such as the founder’s conviction of extortion and his family’s income to hint at what might be the reason for the searches but doesn’t make any accusations. Everything in the article has attributions to verifiable sources such as the IRS, giving him further protection. A more recent article reported that the founders of the organization are being sued for taking kickbacks from vendors and taking money for themselves.
Another article reports on the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Angel Food Ministries employee against Andy Wingo, the son of founder Joe Wingo and treasurer for the organization. The writer, who did all three stories, ties this lawsuit together with the events of the previous stories. As in the other story, he reports on who didn’t answer phone calls and what those who did said. The writer’s careful reporting of the facts and use of attribution will protect him if a member of Angel Food ministries decides to sue him for libel.
Showing posts with label Libel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libel. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Charity under fire?
Talking about libel has made me aware of just how delicately the news has to be handled. Any story involving court cases, allegations, or inflammatory comments is treading on libelous ground, and reporters must strike a precipitous balance between exciting news and slanderous material.
As I started reading a story published in the Athens-Banner Herald, I noticed that the article covered two very different cases involving the same people. The founders of a charity organization, Angel Food Ministries, are accused of misappropriating funds and using company money to build their own home. The corruption purportedly runs throughout the Wingo family, who founded the organization; board members of Angel Food Ministries also fired one of the Wingo sons for allegedly taking under-the-table payments from grocery companies.
The story gets especially interesting when reports are included about a sexual harassment lawsuit against Andy Wingo (the same son mentioned above). Another employee, Tioni King, accused Wingo of using his position to leverage sex from her. Because Andy Wingo is a private citizen, I think reporting on the sexual harassment lawsuit brings a new level of risk into the equation. Where the criminal allegations against the family come from multiple sources, the harassment lawsuit has only one source, and could certainly prove harmful to Wingo's reputation.
I wonder if the reporter questioned other sources at the organization to see if they'd had similar experiences, or checked to make sure that King was a reliable source. If the information is sketchy, combining both into one story could complicate the situation for the newspaper if they were to ever be accused of libel. Still, they've set up their defenses well: the online story includes a PDF of the board members' suit against the Wingos and a PDF of the sexual harassment lawsuit. I'm curious to see how the suits play out, and whether one--or both--turn out to be true.
As I started reading a story published in the Athens-Banner Herald, I noticed that the article covered two very different cases involving the same people. The founders of a charity organization, Angel Food Ministries, are accused of misappropriating funds and using company money to build their own home. The corruption purportedly runs throughout the Wingo family, who founded the organization; board members of Angel Food Ministries also fired one of the Wingo sons for allegedly taking under-the-table payments from grocery companies.
The story gets especially interesting when reports are included about a sexual harassment lawsuit against Andy Wingo (the same son mentioned above). Another employee, Tioni King, accused Wingo of using his position to leverage sex from her. Because Andy Wingo is a private citizen, I think reporting on the sexual harassment lawsuit brings a new level of risk into the equation. Where the criminal allegations against the family come from multiple sources, the harassment lawsuit has only one source, and could certainly prove harmful to Wingo's reputation.
I wonder if the reporter questioned other sources at the organization to see if they'd had similar experiences, or checked to make sure that King was a reliable source. If the information is sketchy, combining both into one story could complicate the situation for the newspaper if they were to ever be accused of libel. Still, they've set up their defenses well: the online story includes a PDF of the board members' suit against the Wingos and a PDF of the sexual harassment lawsuit. I'm curious to see how the suits play out, and whether one--or both--turn out to be true.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Even if he proves libel, he still could get life in prison
On Feb. 18, 2009, The Early Show on CBS aired a story of a Muslim woman being decapitated by her husband. Aasiya Hassan was found murdered at the television station she and her husband, Muzzammil Hassan started in2004. The irony of the crime is that the Islam television station that the couple started together was to create a more positive and less violent image of Muslims in America.
This story was release a few days after the killing occurred. I had to read this story twice to decide if Hassan had a chance to win a libel case. I understand that he is a suspected murderer, but some of the quotes from experts used by the reporter in the article could be considered damaging.
The district attorney, Frank Sedita III, said, “He's a pretty vicious and remorseless bastard."
Another expert, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a psychology professor at Richmond University, said, "Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife"
I went over the criteria that a person must prove to win a libel case. The first thing I had to determine was whether Hassan was a public figure. If so, he would have to prove actual malice. Before he decapitated his wife, I would have considered him a private citizen, but after doing such a gruesome act, I think he became a public figure. That is going to make it hard for him to win a libel case, but he might be able to so we will go on to the next step.
The story must be published. That is easy to prove, the story was published on Feb. 18, 2009.
The story must be defamatory. His action was terrible, but defamation is a bit harder to prove. He would have a small chance to be able to prove that using “terrorist” to describe the way he killed his wife could be consider defamatory. I think the expert is just comparing his action to that of a terrorist, so I do not think he would have a strong case for defamation. He did have a strong case for defamation when the attorney general called him a remorseless bastard, though.
Injury is next, the story definitely causes injury to him and his television station. The station will lose a lot of money and his reputation has been permanently damaged.
The last thing that has to proven is fault, was the newspaper at fault for harming this man’s reputation. The newspaper was not printing the story to intentionally hurt this man. The story was just giving the people the facts of the story.
Yes, the expert’s opinion did use the word terrorist, which is a touchy world in today’s society, but they did not directly call Hassan a terrorist. The attorney general needs to watch out though, calling someone a vicious and remorseless bastard might land him in some hot water.
After going over the article, I do not think that the article would be proven libelous, but it is up to the courts to decide. Hassan would not have a case citing Chesler’s quote as libel, but the printed quote by the attorney general might win even if it is just the lawyer’s opinion.
This story was release a few days after the killing occurred. I had to read this story twice to decide if Hassan had a chance to win a libel case. I understand that he is a suspected murderer, but some of the quotes from experts used by the reporter in the article could be considered damaging.
The district attorney, Frank Sedita III, said, “He's a pretty vicious and remorseless bastard."
Another expert, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a psychology professor at Richmond University, said, "Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife"
I went over the criteria that a person must prove to win a libel case. The first thing I had to determine was whether Hassan was a public figure. If so, he would have to prove actual malice. Before he decapitated his wife, I would have considered him a private citizen, but after doing such a gruesome act, I think he became a public figure. That is going to make it hard for him to win a libel case, but he might be able to so we will go on to the next step.
The story must be published. That is easy to prove, the story was published on Feb. 18, 2009.
The story must be defamatory. His action was terrible, but defamation is a bit harder to prove. He would have a small chance to be able to prove that using “terrorist” to describe the way he killed his wife could be consider defamatory. I think the expert is just comparing his action to that of a terrorist, so I do not think he would have a strong case for defamation. He did have a strong case for defamation when the attorney general called him a remorseless bastard, though.
Injury is next, the story definitely causes injury to him and his television station. The station will lose a lot of money and his reputation has been permanently damaged.
The last thing that has to proven is fault, was the newspaper at fault for harming this man’s reputation. The newspaper was not printing the story to intentionally hurt this man. The story was just giving the people the facts of the story.
Yes, the expert’s opinion did use the word terrorist, which is a touchy world in today’s society, but they did not directly call Hassan a terrorist. The attorney general needs to watch out though, calling someone a vicious and remorseless bastard might land him in some hot water.
After going over the article, I do not think that the article would be proven libelous, but it is up to the courts to decide. Hassan would not have a case citing Chesler’s quote as libel, but the printed quote by the attorney general might win even if it is just the lawyer’s opinion.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Libel got you down? Well, it should...
I just reviewed an article in The Red & Black entitled "Student, on probation for animal cruelty, accumulates drug charges (w/documents)", and there is only one word to describe it: intense. Not only has Ashley Council, the subject of the crime story, been arrested numerous times, but she's also been charged with multiple different offenses, and, to make matters worse, she's been withdrawn and readmitted into the University creating a mess out of the situation and her personal record and involving more than one judicial system. It seems like it would be so easy to say one wrong thing or get all the facts mixed up and, the next day, have all these lawyers calling to set things straight.
To check behind the reporter to make sure there is no libel in the story, I am going to analyze how the story fares against the 5 parts of libel and some of its defenses.
Publication - There is definitely publication, both online and in the paper on Feb. 24, 2009.
Identification - Ashley Rose Council, 21, a University student (at times) has definitely been identified. Especially with her picture in the paper, there is no way to get around it.
Defamation - Definitely. Charges of animal cruelty, DUI, and obstruction of a law enforcement official are very serious, especially the fact that she's served jail time. I don't even know her, but after I read this story, I definitely don't want to meet her. If I feel this way, I can only imagine what future employers, judges, and neighbors will think after reading this article.
Injury - As far as monetary loss, I don't know if there is any. I mean, I suppose there could be monetary loss in the sense that people wouldn't want to hire her after this article was published, but that's kind of hard to prove. Otherwise, I think the only loss is really just in reputation.
Fault - I don't think it was done on purpose or with intent. All the facts seem to check, and she even cites police reports in most cases - but maybe The Red & Black just made some stuff up to generate some interest on campus or maybe someone at the paper just didn't like her. Again, it's not really clear, but you never know.
If I were a judge and just considered those 5 things without further investigation, The Red & Black would probably be done for. The things mentioned in that article about Council are horrible...but are they true?
Truth, to me, seems like the only defense that could beat this case. As far as qualified privilege is concerned, the paper had the right to use police reports and contact others about the case that would give them information, and the paper has the right to comment on matters of public interest or things on public display, especially those which might harm the safety of the citizens.
If I were the news editor of The Red & Black, I would probably ask to see the police reports. I did a quick search of Ashley Council's name on Google and found various other articles from news organizations and animal shelters saying the same thing about Council's arrests. However, they are not qualified sources. I am not sure if there is a place online to find accurate and official information on arrests, charges, and police reports, so I would definitely probably make sure that the reporter obtained a copy of the police report to bring to me when I read through her article. If all the information checks out, which I think it does, then the article is fine - for the most part.
Additional Analysis ------------------------------------------------------
There is one part in the article towards the end which is kind of touchy. In this part, the reporter writes:
"Even if Council is found guilty on all four of this weekend's charges, the University Judiciary is likely to sentence her to a year of University probation. Council would still be a University student.
However, due to a recent change in University policy, if Council were to drop out of school for over a year - due to jail time or otherwise - she would have to reapply to the University."
While this statement may look fine, the problem is that it assumes what action the University Judiciary will take. This information is not based on any facts, and if it is, it should be explicitly stated in the article. In order to make these sentences better, the reporter could maybe cite other cases similar to this where the same action was taken by the University Judiciary. Until the reporter can prove that there was a precedent, however, judgments should not be made on the outcome of the case and the University Judiciary should be free to decide what they think is right free from outside influence. To me, these statements are not considered fair comment because there is no factual basis listed in the article for these opinions.
Brittany
To check behind the reporter to make sure there is no libel in the story, I am going to analyze how the story fares against the 5 parts of libel and some of its defenses.
Publication - There is definitely publication, both online and in the paper on Feb. 24, 2009.
Identification - Ashley Rose Council, 21, a University student (at times) has definitely been identified. Especially with her picture in the paper, there is no way to get around it.
Defamation - Definitely. Charges of animal cruelty, DUI, and obstruction of a law enforcement official are very serious, especially the fact that she's served jail time. I don't even know her, but after I read this story, I definitely don't want to meet her. If I feel this way, I can only imagine what future employers, judges, and neighbors will think after reading this article.
Injury - As far as monetary loss, I don't know if there is any. I mean, I suppose there could be monetary loss in the sense that people wouldn't want to hire her after this article was published, but that's kind of hard to prove. Otherwise, I think the only loss is really just in reputation.
Fault - I don't think it was done on purpose or with intent. All the facts seem to check, and she even cites police reports in most cases - but maybe The Red & Black just made some stuff up to generate some interest on campus or maybe someone at the paper just didn't like her. Again, it's not really clear, but you never know.
If I were a judge and just considered those 5 things without further investigation, The Red & Black would probably be done for. The things mentioned in that article about Council are horrible...but are they true?
Truth, to me, seems like the only defense that could beat this case. As far as qualified privilege is concerned, the paper had the right to use police reports and contact others about the case that would give them information, and the paper has the right to comment on matters of public interest or things on public display, especially those which might harm the safety of the citizens.
If I were the news editor of The Red & Black, I would probably ask to see the police reports. I did a quick search of Ashley Council's name on Google and found various other articles from news organizations and animal shelters saying the same thing about Council's arrests. However, they are not qualified sources. I am not sure if there is a place online to find accurate and official information on arrests, charges, and police reports, so I would definitely probably make sure that the reporter obtained a copy of the police report to bring to me when I read through her article. If all the information checks out, which I think it does, then the article is fine - for the most part.
Additional Analysis ------------------------------------------------------
There is one part in the article towards the end which is kind of touchy. In this part, the reporter writes:
"Even if Council is found guilty on all four of this weekend's charges, the University Judiciary is likely to sentence her to a year of University probation. Council would still be a University student.
However, due to a recent change in University policy, if Council were to drop out of school for over a year - due to jail time or otherwise - she would have to reapply to the University."
While this statement may look fine, the problem is that it assumes what action the University Judiciary will take. This information is not based on any facts, and if it is, it should be explicitly stated in the article. In order to make these sentences better, the reporter could maybe cite other cases similar to this where the same action was taken by the University Judiciary. Until the reporter can prove that there was a precedent, however, judgments should not be made on the outcome of the case and the University Judiciary should be free to decide what they think is right free from outside influence. To me, these statements are not considered fair comment because there is no factual basis listed in the article for these opinions.
Brittany
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)