As we continue to analyze the situation at the LA Times and Chuck Philips article, I'm considering what the legal repurcussions will be. Yesterday I considered the basic conditions of a defamation suit, today we look at the defenses and possible outcomes of the case. If you missed part 1, check it out here!
---
The next matter to examine within defamation cases is the defense. The courts automatically accept the truth as a defense; however in this case it has already been proven that the truth is not what was reported. The next option for the Times is to argue that because of Rosemond’s reputation as a criminal (he does have a record for drug offenses) the story doesn’t damaged his persona anymore. While this is a likely argument Rosemond’s criminal acts are in his past and unless proven otherwise he has become a successful business man. Regardless of the many accusations levied against Rosemond over the years (his history in the streets is constantly questioned and analyzed) he is still innocent until proven guilty and the only crime he has been proven guilty of is one for which he has served his time. The last defense is that the speech is privileged, but this doesn’t apply to this case.
Proving libel per se automatically grants you damages – but facts can be introduced to enlarge or lower the amount in which those damages are. These monetary damages are determined by a jury. While specific damages are unlikely, Rosemond has continued his business since the story with little to no interruption, general damages – those which relate to the seriousness of the defamation and how much harm was inflicted by the defamatory act. Lastly there are punitive damages which serve as punishment to the defamer when the libel is particularly harmful.
I’m not a lawyer; however Rosemond and his attorney have both stated they intend to take full legal action whether it be civilly or criminally. As I’ve outlined here he is positioned best to have a case of libel per se. If Philips story had held up and not been discredited I would say that the case would be unlikely to proceed, however since it has come out that the documents were forged the accusations made from them become that much more dangerous and libelous.
As I reported in my analysis of what went wrong with this article I pointed out that a lawyer could have, and almost certainly should have, looked at what was being reported and what the facts were. The Times has hindered their defense in admitting that a lesser number of editors than normal reviewed the story and I do believe that Rosemond has a very good case of proving libel per se.
---
This article couldn’t have been possible without the assistance of this book:
Herbeck, Dale A. and Thomas L. Tedford. Freedom of Speech in the United States: 5th Edition. 2005. State College, Penn.: Strata Publishing, Inc.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Legal Ramifications (Part 1)
An element to the Philips story that is sure to play out in the future is the issue of defamation against certain individuals. The article makes accusations of the involvement of certain people in criminal acts, namely James Rosemond and James Sabatino, along with stating that Sean “Diddy” Combs and The Notorious B.I.G. were aware the attack on 2Pac was going to happen.
We can eliminate B.I.G. from this equation as he is dead, although I’m unsure if his estate could still claim defamation – that would be a more specific question that someone with more legal knowledge could address. Given that it appears as though Sabatino forged the documents in the story he would also have a challenging time proving he was defamed as he created the defaming documents.
This leaves Combs and Rosemond. The implication that Combs new about the shooting prior to its occurrence would make him accomplice to attempted murder. This is a serious crime and most certainly can harm Combs reputation as a business man. We will come back to him.
Rosemond has the strongest suit for libel per se – defamation charging criminality. Philips makes the accusation that the shooting and robbery of 2Pac was arranged by Rosemond.
In a defamation case there are four elements to consider. First some basic conditions must be met. The first of these is that the defamation must have occurred and the second is that the message had to be published – which in this case it most obviously did as Philips wrote it and the LA Times published it. The only caveat of defamation is that “right-thinking persons” must view the message as insulting or harmful. I think anyone would consider being accused of a violent crime as insulting and harmful. Lastly the person has to be identified – which Philips did outright in his story and referred back to him throughout the article.
The argument could be made that Rosemond is a “public figure” and therefore has to prove “actual malice” on the part of Philips and the times. While people within the music industry are aware of Rosemond he is not a musician, he is a manager and I wouldn’t consider him a person in the public eye – if the case of Combs were to go to trial given his persona he may be able to be considered a public figure, which would only harm his case as “actual malice” isn’t an easy standard to prove.
---
Be sure to check back tomorrow fort part 2 of our analysis of the legality of Philips article and the possible repurcussions.
We can eliminate B.I.G. from this equation as he is dead, although I’m unsure if his estate could still claim defamation – that would be a more specific question that someone with more legal knowledge could address. Given that it appears as though Sabatino forged the documents in the story he would also have a challenging time proving he was defamed as he created the defaming documents.
This leaves Combs and Rosemond. The implication that Combs new about the shooting prior to its occurrence would make him accomplice to attempted murder. This is a serious crime and most certainly can harm Combs reputation as a business man. We will come back to him.
Rosemond has the strongest suit for libel per se – defamation charging criminality. Philips makes the accusation that the shooting and robbery of 2Pac was arranged by Rosemond.
In a defamation case there are four elements to consider. First some basic conditions must be met. The first of these is that the defamation must have occurred and the second is that the message had to be published – which in this case it most obviously did as Philips wrote it and the LA Times published it. The only caveat of defamation is that “right-thinking persons” must view the message as insulting or harmful. I think anyone would consider being accused of a violent crime as insulting and harmful. Lastly the person has to be identified – which Philips did outright in his story and referred back to him throughout the article.
The argument could be made that Rosemond is a “public figure” and therefore has to prove “actual malice” on the part of Philips and the times. While people within the music industry are aware of Rosemond he is not a musician, he is a manager and I wouldn’t consider him a person in the public eye – if the case of Combs were to go to trial given his persona he may be able to be considered a public figure, which would only harm his case as “actual malice” isn’t an easy standard to prove.
---
Be sure to check back tomorrow fort part 2 of our analysis of the legality of Philips article and the possible repurcussions.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
An Article Gone Wrong (Part 2)
We continue to look at Philips article and the complications to consider. If you missed Part 1 check it out here!
---
Given the lack of cause to rush the story to press why wasn’t it investigated more fully? What prompted them to run the story with admittedly less scrutiny than usual?
“An investigative piece will usually be looked at by an assistant managing editor, a managing editor and probably a lawyer,” says Don Smith, interactivity editor for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of their standards for review.
It is the lawyer element that I’m most curious about. This story of Philips is implicated powerful people within the music industry, who will not take kindly to being portrayed as violent criminals. A journalist’s job is to report the truth and the paper he or she writes for should support them when they need it, but on the flip side of that coin the paper also needs to question their reporter and ensure the vetting process is thoroughly completed.
“Lawyers will begin to challenge the facts,” Smith explains about the role they can play in the editorial process. Their role here, I imagine, would have been to take these documents – legal court records something they should have plenty of experience with and look at their validity.
While this should also have been expected of Philips, Jack Shafer of Slate.com points out one possible explanation as to why Philips could have ran with the information he had:
While this is understandable, it is still inexcusable. Philips is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. He knows what it takes to investigate something and he knows, or should know, that he can’t allow his own opinions and biases to get in the way of the truth – that is what he should be in search of.
---
Given the lack of cause to rush the story to press why wasn’t it investigated more fully? What prompted them to run the story with admittedly less scrutiny than usual?
“An investigative piece will usually be looked at by an assistant managing editor, a managing editor and probably a lawyer,” says Don Smith, interactivity editor for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of their standards for review.
It is the lawyer element that I’m most curious about. This story of Philips is implicated powerful people within the music industry, who will not take kindly to being portrayed as violent criminals. A journalist’s job is to report the truth and the paper he or she writes for should support them when they need it, but on the flip side of that coin the paper also needs to question their reporter and ensure the vetting process is thoroughly completed.
“Lawyers will begin to challenge the facts,” Smith explains about the role they can play in the editorial process. Their role here, I imagine, would have been to take these documents – legal court records something they should have plenty of experience with and look at their validity.
While this should also have been expected of Philips, Jack Shafer of Slate.com points out one possible explanation as to why Philips could have ran with the information he had:
“Avoid confirmation bias. It's a universal human trait to seek evidence that confirms what you already believe, to interpret the evidence you've collected to bolster your existing view, and to avoid the evidence that would undermine your notions. "Philips said in an interview that he had believed the documents were legitimate because, in the reporting he had already done on the story, he had heard many of the same details," the Times reports today. Did Philips' willingness to believe what the documents said blind him to the typographic clues that the Smoking Gun says point to forgery? "[The documents] confirmed many of the things I'd learned on my own," Philips said in an interview [this interview has since been pulled from the Times site] before the debunking.”
While this is understandable, it is still inexcusable. Philips is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. He knows what it takes to investigate something and he knows, or should know, that he can’t allow his own opinions and biases to get in the way of the truth – that is what he should be in search of.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
An Article Gone Wrong (Part 1)
On March 17th the Hip Hop world awoke to a story that was sure to shock and make many reflect on events long forgotten. Not that we didn’t remember the infamous shooting of Tupac Shakur at Quad Recording studios, how could we with the multiple songs and rants ‘Pac went on to record after his recovery.
But this story, like another one from 2002 by the same author – award winning writer for the LA Times Chuck Philips, left many fans of the music perplexed. Who was this guy writing about us? Why was he so determined to investigate the murders of ‘Pac and Biggie? And where was he getting his facts?
Within the Hip Hop community there is often talk of criminal activity and artists try to build up connections to the street, but Philips story was straight out of your favorite rappers favorite gangsta flick.
Reporting the events of the evening from FBI documents of interviews with a confidential informant and his own anonymous sources Philips paints a picture of gangsters turned Hip Hop entrepreneurs and in the process implicates current power player Jimmy “Henchman” Rosemond (Rapper The Game’s manager) as the mastermind behind the shooting, along with a young man named James Sabatino.
The problem? The Smoking Gun website investigated Philips “documents” and found them to be filled with misspellings, featuring many of the same errors as documents filed by Sabatino in other unrelated court matters, along with convenient redactions of officers names and other information that would help place the documents. The documents were also found to have been prepared on a typewriter – which the FBI stopped using over thirty years ago. Finally the Smoking Gun showed the documents to retired FBI agents who didn’t recognize standard Bureau protocol within them.
Just as with the Dan Rather document scandal in 2004, it was the new internet journalists who had challenged the facts and proved the error.
But had the damage been done? The Times stated in their retraction that “the story was reviewed by [Marc] Duvoisin [Philips supervisor and Deputy managing editor] and two editors on the copy desk. Other investigative stories published by The Times in recent years have in some cases received the scrutiny of at least one more editor and often of the managing editor or editor of the newspaper. The Shakur piece did not receive that many layers of review.”
This is one of the key elements to what went wrong here. This story isn’t time sensitive. It is looking at events that took place over a decade ago – and the last major story at all related was written by Philips for the Times, they had the story and no one was chasing it… although then the question becomes why is this one guy following a “story” when it doesn’t seem to actually be a story?
---
Be sure to come back tomorrow for part 2 of the analysis of Philips errors!
But this story, like another one from 2002 by the same author – award winning writer for the LA Times Chuck Philips, left many fans of the music perplexed. Who was this guy writing about us? Why was he so determined to investigate the murders of ‘Pac and Biggie? And where was he getting his facts?
Within the Hip Hop community there is often talk of criminal activity and artists try to build up connections to the street, but Philips story was straight out of your favorite rappers favorite gangsta flick.
Reporting the events of the evening from FBI documents of interviews with a confidential informant and his own anonymous sources Philips paints a picture of gangsters turned Hip Hop entrepreneurs and in the process implicates current power player Jimmy “Henchman” Rosemond (Rapper The Game’s manager) as the mastermind behind the shooting, along with a young man named James Sabatino.
The problem? The Smoking Gun website investigated Philips “documents” and found them to be filled with misspellings, featuring many of the same errors as documents filed by Sabatino in other unrelated court matters, along with convenient redactions of officers names and other information that would help place the documents. The documents were also found to have been prepared on a typewriter – which the FBI stopped using over thirty years ago. Finally the Smoking Gun showed the documents to retired FBI agents who didn’t recognize standard Bureau protocol within them.
Just as with the Dan Rather document scandal in 2004, it was the new internet journalists who had challenged the facts and proved the error.
But had the damage been done? The Times stated in their retraction that “the story was reviewed by [Marc] Duvoisin [Philips supervisor and Deputy managing editor] and two editors on the copy desk. Other investigative stories published by The Times in recent years have in some cases received the scrutiny of at least one more editor and often of the managing editor or editor of the newspaper. The Shakur piece did not receive that many layers of review.”
This is one of the key elements to what went wrong here. This story isn’t time sensitive. It is looking at events that took place over a decade ago – and the last major story at all related was written by Philips for the Times, they had the story and no one was chasing it… although then the question becomes why is this one guy following a “story” when it doesn’t seem to actually be a story?
---
Be sure to come back tomorrow for part 2 of the analysis of Philips errors!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Past journalism errors and a look forward
In an age of electronic media and fading print journalism we have to consider the checks and balances system editors have played throughout history and how that system can transcend the medium in which a reporter uses so as to continue a high level of scrutiny on the reporting.
While new blogs appear all the time on the internet the question is raised – who is checking the facts and considering these stories before their published? As I learned about the Philips case I was curious to look at other events that were both similar and far worse.
The first case I considered was a that of Dan Rather and the scandal surrounding his and 60 Minutes use of what turned out to be forged documents. In Rather’s case the newsman and his staff had received documents that seemed to support claims that President Bush had violated regulations of the Texas Air National Guard and received special treatment due to who his father is.
While both Rather’s situation and that of Philips today are similar in that they deal with a report making claims based off a forged document the situations couldn’t be more different. However, regardless of the situation the process of journalism can’t be forgotten or abridged because of what you are reporting on.
Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute said in an interview at the time of the Rather fiasco “CBS and Dan Rather failed journalistically. They failed ethically. They did not do the appropriate reporting at the front end and they failed to apply rigorous oversight and checks and balances in the process and to the product.”
I also considered the case of Jayson Blair at the New York Times and his countless acts of plagiarism. During his tenure with the paper he wrote over 600 articles, all of which must be called into question given his actions.
While the differences between the Blair and Philips cases are more obvious (plagiarism vs. use of fake documents) the reaction should be the same. Beyond this though we need to look at how our journalism ethics are being transferred into the next generation.
If journalism is going to sustain this move into a new medium we have to hold reporters to the same standard and address their errors with the same vigor. It’s continually being questioned as to whether bloggers are journalists. Regardless of the answer, most bloggers are attempting to report something and this fact means they need to be held accountable for what it is they publish just as those before them have been.
In trying to determine what the appropriate action is to be taken against both Chuck Philips and the LA Times it is important to analyze these past errors and the resultant action. While Rather was able to leave CBS gracefully, it is hard to not view his role with the forged documents as the event that helped ease him out of his anchor position. Blair resigned from the New York Times, which I view as a travesty. He should not have been allowed the dignity of resignation - they should have fired him.
Philips is still on the pay roll of the LA Times but his future roll with the paper is being determined.
While new blogs appear all the time on the internet the question is raised – who is checking the facts and considering these stories before their published? As I learned about the Philips case I was curious to look at other events that were both similar and far worse.
The first case I considered was a that of Dan Rather and the scandal surrounding his and 60 Minutes use of what turned out to be forged documents. In Rather’s case the newsman and his staff had received documents that seemed to support claims that President Bush had violated regulations of the Texas Air National Guard and received special treatment due to who his father is.
While both Rather’s situation and that of Philips today are similar in that they deal with a report making claims based off a forged document the situations couldn’t be more different. However, regardless of the situation the process of journalism can’t be forgotten or abridged because of what you are reporting on.
Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute said in an interview at the time of the Rather fiasco “CBS and Dan Rather failed journalistically. They failed ethically. They did not do the appropriate reporting at the front end and they failed to apply rigorous oversight and checks and balances in the process and to the product.”
I also considered the case of Jayson Blair at the New York Times and his countless acts of plagiarism. During his tenure with the paper he wrote over 600 articles, all of which must be called into question given his actions.
While the differences between the Blair and Philips cases are more obvious (plagiarism vs. use of fake documents) the reaction should be the same. Beyond this though we need to look at how our journalism ethics are being transferred into the next generation.
If journalism is going to sustain this move into a new medium we have to hold reporters to the same standard and address their errors with the same vigor. It’s continually being questioned as to whether bloggers are journalists. Regardless of the answer, most bloggers are attempting to report something and this fact means they need to be held accountable for what it is they publish just as those before them have been.
In trying to determine what the appropriate action is to be taken against both Chuck Philips and the LA Times it is important to analyze these past errors and the resultant action. While Rather was able to leave CBS gracefully, it is hard to not view his role with the forged documents as the event that helped ease him out of his anchor position. Blair resigned from the New York Times, which I view as a travesty. He should not have been allowed the dignity of resignation - they should have fired him.
Philips is still on the pay roll of the LA Times but his future roll with the paper is being determined.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Some History To Consider
While Chuck Philips article is about an event that took place in 1994, the seeds for its reality began a few years prior. To place this conversation in context here is a timeline that documents the progression of the rivalry between coasts.
Late 1980s – West coast artists such as N.W.A. and Ice-T begin seeing success and start to garner attention that had almost exclusively been for New York artists.
1991 – Tim Dog, a New York based emcee, released the dis track “Fuck Compton” directed at N.W.A. The song causes a wave of responses from various West coast artists.
Dec. 15th, 1992 – Dr. Dre releases The Chronic on Death Row Records. Becomes a multi-platinum hit.
1993 – Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs starts Bad Boy Records, signs The Notorious B.I.G.
Nov. 23rd, 1993 – Snoop Dogg releases Doggystyle on Death Row Records – quickly becoming another multi-platinum hit.
1994 – The success of Death Row records brings the spotlight to Los Angeles and the West coast, while their East coast counterparts struggled to maintain commercial viability.
Sept. 14th, 1994 – The Notorious B.I.G. releases Ready to Die on Bad Boy Records.
Nov. 30th, 1994 – 2Pac is shot at Quad Recording Studios in New York. Puffy and Biggie were in the building on a different floor. This combined with the release of “Who Shot Ya?” by Biggie led to 2Pac becoming convinced that Puffy and Biggie were involved in his shooting.
Aug. 1995 – Suge Knight taunts Puffy at the Source Awards stating “Any artists out there who wants to be an artist and stay a star, and don't wanna have to worry about the executive producer trying to be…all in the videos, all on the records, dancing…come to Death Row!”
Oct. 1995 – In exchange for his bail being paid 2Pac signs with Suge Knight and Death Row Records, further establishing the rivalry with Bad Boy Records.
Late ’95 into 1996 – 2Pac released many songs attacking Biggie, Bad Boy Records and the east coast.
1996 – Death Row act Tha Dogg Pound releases a music video for their single “New York, New York” which features the two West coast emcees knocking over skyscrapers in New York. New York rappers Tragedy Khadafi, Capone-N-Noreaga and Mobb Deep respond with a video for “LA, LA” in which the murder of Tha Dogg Pound is portrayed.
Sept. 7th, 1996 – 2Pac is shot in Las Vegas.
Sept. 13th, 1996 – 2Pac dies from his wounds.
March 9th, 1997 – The Notorious B.I.G. is shot and killed in Los Angeles.
While artists from both coasts helped spur this rivalry forward, it was often the media that helped sensationalize the events. Following the murders of 2Pac and Biggie, artists, fans and the media reevaluated their roles in the feud and how they would handle similar situations in the future.
Late 1980s – West coast artists such as N.W.A. and Ice-T begin seeing success and start to garner attention that had almost exclusively been for New York artists.
1991 – Tim Dog, a New York based emcee, released the dis track “Fuck Compton” directed at N.W.A. The song causes a wave of responses from various West coast artists.
Dec. 15th, 1992 – Dr. Dre releases The Chronic on Death Row Records. Becomes a multi-platinum hit.
1993 – Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs starts Bad Boy Records, signs The Notorious B.I.G.
Nov. 23rd, 1993 – Snoop Dogg releases Doggystyle on Death Row Records – quickly becoming another multi-platinum hit.
1994 – The success of Death Row records brings the spotlight to Los Angeles and the West coast, while their East coast counterparts struggled to maintain commercial viability.
Sept. 14th, 1994 – The Notorious B.I.G. releases Ready to Die on Bad Boy Records.
Nov. 30th, 1994 – 2Pac is shot at Quad Recording Studios in New York. Puffy and Biggie were in the building on a different floor. This combined with the release of “Who Shot Ya?” by Biggie led to 2Pac becoming convinced that Puffy and Biggie were involved in his shooting.
Aug. 1995 – Suge Knight taunts Puffy at the Source Awards stating “Any artists out there who wants to be an artist and stay a star, and don't wanna have to worry about the executive producer trying to be…all in the videos, all on the records, dancing…come to Death Row!”
Oct. 1995 – In exchange for his bail being paid 2Pac signs with Suge Knight and Death Row Records, further establishing the rivalry with Bad Boy Records.
Late ’95 into 1996 – 2Pac released many songs attacking Biggie, Bad Boy Records and the east coast.
1996 – Death Row act Tha Dogg Pound releases a music video for their single “New York, New York” which features the two West coast emcees knocking over skyscrapers in New York. New York rappers Tragedy Khadafi, Capone-N-Noreaga and Mobb Deep respond with a video for “LA, LA” in which the murder of Tha Dogg Pound is portrayed.
Sept. 7th, 1996 – 2Pac is shot in Las Vegas.
Sept. 13th, 1996 – 2Pac dies from his wounds.
March 9th, 1997 – The Notorious B.I.G. is shot and killed in Los Angeles.
While artists from both coasts helped spur this rivalry forward, it was often the media that helped sensationalize the events. Following the murders of 2Pac and Biggie, artists, fans and the media reevaluated their roles in the feud and how they would handle similar situations in the future.
Hello & Welcome
As I wrap up my senior year of college I’m looking into the events surrounding the publishing of an article for the LA Times that was written by Chuck Philips.
On March 17th Philips and the Times published a story on their website (it has since been pulled from their site – I provide you with a copy here) that detailed the shooting of 2Pac at Quad Recording studios in 1994. Philips story claimed that Puff Daddy and Jimmy Rosemond orchestrated the shooting. The story was run on the entertainment front page of the Times print edition on the 19th.
On the 26th the website The Smoking Gun published the story “Big Phat Liar” examining the documents that served as the basis for much of Philips article and looking into the history of a one James Sabatino. The report found the documents Philips relied on to be forgeries that were most likely created by Sabatino, who also plays an integral role in Philips story.
The following day the LA Times issued an apology and on April 7th a formal retraction was published, along with the apology once again for extra emphasis.
The events surrounding this situation are not entirely clear. My purpose here will be to analyze the responsibility and ethics surrounding the issue and to consider how it could have been handled differently.
On March 17th Philips and the Times published a story on their website (it has since been pulled from their site – I provide you with a copy here) that detailed the shooting of 2Pac at Quad Recording studios in 1994. Philips story claimed that Puff Daddy and Jimmy Rosemond orchestrated the shooting. The story was run on the entertainment front page of the Times print edition on the 19th.
On the 26th the website The Smoking Gun published the story “Big Phat Liar” examining the documents that served as the basis for much of Philips article and looking into the history of a one James Sabatino. The report found the documents Philips relied on to be forgeries that were most likely created by Sabatino, who also plays an integral role in Philips story.
The following day the LA Times issued an apology and on April 7th a formal retraction was published, along with the apology once again for extra emphasis.
The events surrounding this situation are not entirely clear. My purpose here will be to analyze the responsibility and ethics surrounding the issue and to consider how it could have been handled differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)