Murray - I think these publicatons rely on public figures' reluctance to
sue.  If there's any truth in the article at all, a lawsuit might reveal
even more.  I also suspect a good share of the stories have some element of
truth.  When taken to the mat by irate public figures, the publication will
be reluctant to admit that their their "embellished" story was misreported,
but, in those few cases where things get dicey, they'll litigate or publish
a correction as they see fit?  Yes, the plaintiffs' bar is strong - but so
are these papers and the 1st Am.   Nim Razook



-----Original Message-----
From: Levin, Murray S [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Help with understanding defamation law


Can somebody help me better understand how the trashy scandal "newspapers"
that are routinely at the check-out line at the stores are seemingly so free
to print what they do. I am familiar with the "textbook basics" of
defamation law and understand that a public figure plaintiff has the
additional burden of proving malice (New York Times v. Sullivan standard of
"knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth") to prevail  I recall
that Carol Burnett, Clint Eastwood, and some others have successfully sued
these publishers for defamation. I must be missing some practical aspect of
this situation that serves to impede many more people from bringing these
suits. Sure these publishers make a lot of money, but it seems to me that a
multitude of suits, punitive damages, and an aggressive trial lawyers bar
ought to counterbalance that. I would think that juries could find malice
(as defined above) in most of the stories that I see, and that a plaintiffs'
bar would have shut this trash down long ago. What am I missing?

Murray Levin
University of Kansas
[log in to unmask]