N.H. High Court Backs Anonymous Blogging, Shield Law for Online Journalists

Image by Ben McLeod via Flickr

In the important 14-page decision last week of The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. (Case No. 2009-262), the New Hampshire Supreme Court bolstered protection for preserving the confidentiality of anonymous bloggers.

Implode-O-Meter, a Website that follows the mortgage industry, reported the N.H. Banking Dept. was investigating The Mortgage Specialists, Inc., and linked to an official document addressing the probe that the Website obtained from a confidential source. A pseudonymous blogger, "Brianbattersby," commented on the investigation.

The Mortgage Specialists successfully argued before Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Kenneth McHugh for an injunction ordering the removal of the banking report document and for identification of the anonymous blogger, whose comments the mortgage company claimed were defamatory.

The N.H. High Court said a balancing test must be applied not only to the plaintiff's interests, but also to the interests of  anonymous speakers. The Court wrote: "The fact that Implode operates a Website makes it no less a member of the press...[W]e conclude that Implode's Website serves an informative function and contributes to the flow of information to the public. Thus, Implode is a reporter for purposes of the newsgathering privilege."

The Supreme Court said publication of the loan document did not violate privacy and confidentiality laws. The High Court also raised the bar for requiring the disclosure of the identity of anonymous online speakers.  "TUOL" weighed in on this case,and  the hot-button issue of  the application of First Amendment protection to anonymous bloggers on N.H. Public Radio's The Exchange last November (http://www.nhpr.org/node/27862).

Wichita Station Off-the-Hook in Misidentified Murder Suspect Suit

Image via Wikipedia

In Melanie L. Valadez, Adm. of Estate of Roger G. Valadez v. Emmis Communications & Todd Spessard, (Case No. 99,139), the Kansas Supreme Court this month overturned a judgment against Wichita's KSN-TV and its news director involving the station's wrongly identifying plaintiff's decedent as a suspect in the notorious BTK serial killings.

According to an Associated Press report, in December 2004, KSN-TV, acting on an anonymous tip, dispatched a reporter to the home of Roger G. Valadez whom police had arrested for housing code violations and trespassing. Police had obtained a search warrant of Valadez's home.  The station erroneously reported that Valadez's arrest was in connection with the BTK killings ("Bind, Torture, Kill"), which terrorized Wichita from 1974-91. Ultimately, Dennis Radar confessed to the BTK killings of 10 individuals following his arrest in 2005.

Valadez sued Emmis Comm. (KSN-TV owner) and Spessard in 2005, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy and outrage. A jury in October 2006, awarded the plaintiff $300,000 for defamation and $800,000 for mental suffering. Roger Valadez died in November 2006, and the trial court threw out the defamation award in January 2007, ruling any harm to Valadez's reputation ended on his death, and reduced the $800,000 outrage award to $250,000.

The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the $250,000 judgment, holding that the plaintiff's decedent had not suffered severe emotional distress, evidenced by his absence of psychiatric or mental health treatment, and ruled any emotional upset the late Valadez endured would have occurred even if KSN-TV just reported the facts of his arrest. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, when Valadez died, the jury award in his favor was not yet final and had not been entered into the official court journal.

"We do not hold that the media is beyond the scope of tortious outrage actions in all circumstances," the court wrote. "We merely hold that under the facts of this case, the plaintiff failed to prove an injury severe enough to sustain his claim."

Canada High Court Rejects Constitutional Reporter's Privilege

Image by jacob earl via Flickr

No constitutional provision exists to shield journalists from having to divulge confidential sources to authorities engaged in police investigations, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in an 8-1 decision.

The High Court upheld a 2008 ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that rejected a reporter's privilege claim and ordered the National Post to surrender a document to police, reversing the Ontario Superior Court, which had quashed the search warrant for the information involving a land deal by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Nowhere to be found in the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of Rights is a special constitutional privilege for journalists, the Supreme Court held.  With the proliferation of the news media and the absence of uniform industry guidelines governing the handling of news sources, the High Court ruled that granting constitutional immunity to the press would impede law enforcement and jeopardize constitutional values, such as privacy.

The news wasn't all bad for Canadian journalists.  Writing for the majority, Justice Ian Binnie said courts should "strive to uphold the special position of the media and protect the media's secret sources where such protection is in the public interest."  The Supreme Court articulated the possibility of shielding confidential sources on a case-by-case evaluation, depending on factors such as the severity of the underlying crime being investigated, the relevance and value of the confidential information being sought by authorities, and "the public interest in respecting the journalist's promise of confidentiality."

Small steps, perhaps, but moving closer to the ad hoc test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972),  which recognized a limited journalist's privilege that could be overcome by a showing that the shielded information was relevant, vital to the case and unavailable elsewhere. Justice Rosalie Abella dissented from the opinion of her fellow Canadian justices, noting that confidential sources are critical to the "responsible performance of the media's role."

Does Newsweek Have a 'Slim' Chance?

Image via Wikipedia

The Washington Post has retained Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling to advise it on the sale of Newsweek magazine, the black-and-blue newsweekly that bled $28 million in losses last year. Meanwhile, Newsweek's editor, Jon Meacham, has expressed hope he can corral investors and purchase the magazine.

Now, The New York Post reports today that Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire who owns 7 percent of The New York Times, was taking in the sites of Manhattan this week, meeting with Newsweek executives and New York Times bigwigs, with plans at the very least to increase his ownership stake in the Gray Lady.  Not so fast, says www.Forbes.com, which quotes a Slim spokesperson (and son-in-law) as confirming that the billionaire visited New York City, but did not contact Newsweek and has no present interest in boosting his ownership in the Times.

The mainstream press has trouble getting the story right these days, even when it's covering itself.  One thing is indisputable--the slow death that Newsweek in  its current state is suffering has picked up its pace.

4 Journos Scratched Off Gitmo Guest List

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Pentagon has revoked the press credentials of four journalists covering the Gitmo military commission hearings after their articles named a witness whose identity had been protected by the presiding judge.

The judge presiding over the pretrial proceedings of  23-year-old Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, ordered that a witness be referred to only as "Interrogator No. 1," although the individual in question gave an on-the-record interview to one of the barred reporters in 2008 and was identified by name in 2005 during court-martial proceedings against him.  Likewise, the presiding judge closed the courtroom during the airing of a video interrogation of Khadr by Canadian authorities, even though the video was widely disseminated on YouTube after its public release was ordered by the Canadian Supreme Court.

The four journalists precluded from further reporting on Guantanamo Bay military commission hearings include The Toronto Star's Michelle Shepard, The Globe & Mail reporter Paul Koring, The Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg and Steven Edwards of the CanWest news service.  The Pentagon order bars only the named reporters, but permits their news organizations to send other journalists to cover the detention proceedings. Reporters are allowed to cover court proceedings at Gitmo, but are not permitted to interview participants at any time. The four journalists are expected to appeal their ban.

A judge must be empowered to uphold courtroom decorum and able to suppress sensitive information vital to national security, notwithstanding the First Amendment. However, imposing a gag order on information that already is widely circulated in the public domain is more surreal, than sensible.  The Pentagon would do well to review the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (the "Pentagon Papers" case), to brush-up on the high standard  set for prior restraint, and U.S. v. Progressive, 407 F. Supp. 990 (1979), in which a gag order against a magazine publishing an article about making an H-Bomb was rendered moot by other publications' publishing different "recipes" for making the bomb.

Guantanamo Bay and The Bill of Rights get along like Charlie Sheen and the Mrs., so it was only a matter of time before the First Amendment felt the sting of Gitmo.

Playboy: Nude-Free Website in the Offing?

Image via Wikipedia

Paidcontent.org reports that Playboy Enterprises, Inc. has plans to debut TheSmokingJacket.com, a Website that folks can safely surf at their office computer because the online content will be bereft of pictures of "nekkid" women.

Okay, faithful "TUOL" readers, now that you've returned from visiting the site and seen for yourselves the "Coming Soon!" notice (make your own joke), you know that Playboy is promising online content that "brings you everything you love about Playboy, men's entertainment, and the Internet"--except for photo spreads of nubile, pneumatic young women who love horseback riding and hate phoniness.

A Playboy Website without nudity?  Wonder if other magazines will follow suit on their online alter egos. Looking forward to Better Homes & Gardens without any photos of homes or gardens, TV Guide sans program listings, and Cosmopolitan without neuroses.

Journos File 1st A. Suit Re: GOP Convention Arrest

Image via Wikipedia

In Goodman et al. v. City of St. Paul et al. (Case No. 0:10cv1966), filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, syndicated broadcast journalist Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, along with two of her producers, Nicole Salazar and Abdel Kouddous, allege their First Amendment rights were violated when they were arrested while covering the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim authorities interfered with their newsgathering and are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants engaging in such conduct in the future, as well as unspecified compensatory and puntive money damages.  In all,  roughly 50 journalists and about 800 protestors and bystanders were arrested during the GOP convention.

Goodman's producers were arrested Sept. 1, 2008, the initial day of the GOP festivities that culminated with the nomination of the McCain/Palin ticket. The suit alleges the plaintiffs were conspicuously displaying press passes when they were arrested.  Named as defendants were the Twin Cities of Minneapolis & St. Paul, along with their police chiefs, Ramsey County and its sheriff, and as-yet unidentified police officers.

Judge Seals Testimony of Upcoming Rielle Hunter Deposition

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Bad news for National Enquirer readers: The Raleigh News & Observer reports that Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour has ordered sealed any information gleaned from the as-yet unscheduled deposition of  Rielle Hunter, campaign videographer and canoodler of former presidential candidate John Edwards, in her lawsuit against Andrew Young, former Edwards aide and philanderer surrogate, concerning ownership rights of a sex tape starring Hunter and Edwards, the one-term, two-timing U.S. Senator from North Carolina.

Judge Baddour's order will keep Hunter's musings under oath under seal for 45 days, after which he will entertain arguments for extending the order.  Hunter's attorneys had tried to obtain a more extensive order from Judge Baddour that would have sealed all depositions in the case and imposed on parties a gag order preventing them from discussing the contents of deposition testimony in public.

Hunter's attorneys argued that exposing Hunter's testimony to public view would subject their client to an invasion of privacy and would be harmful to her reputation.  An interesting, if unpersuasive argument, given that Hunter freely babbled to Oprah about pitching woo with "Johnny" and posed, sans pants,  in GQ Magazine.

Sorry, "TUOL" readers--as much as you may hope for it, both parties in a civil lawsuit can't lose.

Seinfeld Cookbook: A Trademark & Copyright Case About Nothing

Cover via Amazon

In Missy Chase Lapine, The Sneaky Chef, Inc. v. Jessica Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. & Departure Productions, LLC (Case No. 09-4423cv), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last week upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs' copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution claims.

Lapine, author of  The Sneaky Chef:  Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids'  Favorite Meals, claimed  Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Foods, written by Jessica Seinfeld, the spouse of comic Jerry Seinfeld,  infringed on Lapine's work. Both cookbooks cracked The New York Times best-sellers list, with Seinfeld's book, which came out four months after Lapine's, capturing the number 1 spot.

The appellate court conducted an independent comparison of the two cookbooks, concluding: "the 'total concept and feel' of Deceptively Delicious is very different from that of The Sneaky Chef."  Foodies may be thrilled by the Second Circuit's observation that "stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children's food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted."

In reviewing the standard for deciding if copyright infringement occurred, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision noted: "When, as in this case, a work incorporates unprotected elements from the public domain, we apply a 'more discerning observer' test, which requires 'substantial similarity between those elements, and only those elements, that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed [work]."

Which leads Seinfeld fan "TUOL" to wonder: Why do they call it a "trademark"--there are no marks being traded? And what are they diluting the trademark with?  How do you infringe on a copyright anyway--do you have to stand on it, or can you just make harassing telephone calls?...

2nd Circuit Finds a 'Catch' in Injunction Against Salinger Sequel

Image via Wikipedia

"60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," which draws characters from the late J.D. Salinger's classic "Catcher in the Rye,"  (see "TUOL" post 7/24/09), may yet line the shelves of U.S. bookstores following a ruling April 30 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In  Colleen M. Salinger & Matthew R. Salinger, Trustees of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust v. Fredrik Colting, writing under the name John David California, Windupbird Publishing Ltd., Nicotext A.B. & ABP, Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors, Inc. (Case No. 09-2878cv), the appellate court vacated a preliminary injunction against "60 Years" on copyright infringement grounds and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to review the injunction standard following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts enjoined the publication of Colting's tome, finding it derivative and substantially similar to Salinger's revered novel about Holden Caulfield's coming of age. In other words, Judge Batts determined Salinger was likely to prevail on the merits of his copyright infringement suit, and would be substantially harmed by the sale of "60 Years" in the U.S.

In light of the eBay decision and the recent case of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008), the Second Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York must revise its standard test for determining whether to grant preliminary injunctions in copyright cases. Going forward, a plaintiff seeking a court order enjoining publication in a copyright case must still show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or "sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in [the plaintiff's] favor." More to the point, the plaintiff must demonstrate it will suffer harm if the injunction does not enter, and the court may not presume irreparable harm by following some general rule.

CNN & CBS Marriage in the Works?

Image via Wikipedia

Building viewership and slashing costs are motivating reported news partnership conversations between CBS News and CNN.

Neither CBS nor Time Warner have acknowledged the rumored negotiations, which could result in a boon for both networks. Were a joint operation to be realized, CBS would have a cable outlet to match rival NBC's cable counterpart MSNBC, while CNN could draw on Black Rock's stable of news stars, such as Katie Couric, to combat Fox News and MSNBC, both of which are eating CNN's lunch in the ratings war at present.

Reportedly, even if CNN and CBS combine operations, the Eye Network's "60 Minutes" would be exempt, though the Sunday night powerhouse has made correspondent overtures to CNN's Anderson Cooper in the past.  "TUOL" is undecided about whether a CNN/CBS marriage would result in a journalism upgrade, but it would offer a golden opportunity to perform Carbon 14 testing on Larry King and Andy Rooney.  

OSU Student Photog Involved in 1st Amendment Buckeye Bovine Dust-up

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Runaway cows roaming the athletic fields of Ohio State University on April 21 may sound like a frat house prank, but to shutterbug Alex Kotran of The Lantern, OSU's student newspaper, it was utterly newsworthy.

Kotran started photographing the bovine fugitives, much to the dismay of agriculture dept. employees trying to corral the hoofed hoodlums and campus police who thought the situation was fraught with peril. Kotran soon found himself manacled by OSU  campus police Off. William Linton, who went through Kotran's pockets looking for id so he could complete his report (perhaps he suspected Kotran had hidden files and lock picks in a cow pie facilitating the Guernsey getaway).

Possibly facing a criminal trespass charge (notwithstanding that the incident occurred on a public field of a public research university), Kotran looked to The Lantern and OSU for legal assistance. A University spokesperson said OSU doesn't provide counsel for employees facing criminal charges, let alone photojournalism students, and made other noises about a "conflict of interest." No help was forthcoming from
The Lantern's Publications Committee or the School of Communication either.

The cow flap has drawn the attention of prominent journalist Len Downie, Jr., former managing editor of The Washington Post, current Arizona State Univ. journalism prof., and more important, one-time managing editor of The Lantern. Downie condemned the treatment received by Kotran.

For now, Kotran's parents are likely to foot the legal bill (like a steroidal student activities fee).  At some point, common sense may enter into the equation and an OSU administrator someplace may apologize for the misundertanding that resulted in Kotran's handcuffing. Until then, unlike the on-the-lam Jerseys, the news media will "milk" the Kotran story for all it's worth.

Can a Swede Sue Google for 'Libelous' Links? Of Norse He Can

Image by wEnDaLicious via Flickr

A 61-year-old Swedish businessperson has sued Google for defamation, claiming that a Google search results of his name led to blogs that falsely portray him as a pedophile.

The plaintiff is seeking a million kroner ($135,021) from the Internet search behemoth for negative publicity he and his business purportedly have sustained because of the linked-to information. The businessperson has also alerted police regarding who he suspects is spreading the allegedly defamatory gossip about him.

In the U.S., the individual who initiated the allegedly libelous claims would be exposed to legal liability, but Google, which indexes, rather than publishes data, would likely be protected by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which says the user or provider of an interactive computer service can't be considered the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.

It's a bumpier ride for Google internationally, as the company learned when it was held liable for invasion of privacy by an Italian court (see "TUOL" post 2/25/10), and in 2008, when it was socked by a Brazilian court with an $8,500 fine for a social networking site posting that accused a priest of being a pedophile.

Washington Times: How High the Moon (Sale Price)?

Image via Wikipedia

The Washington Post reports that its beleaguered competitor, The Washington Times, is being pedaled by the Unification Church and its 90-year-old leader, the Rev. Sun-Myung Moon.

One rumored prospective buyer is a group headed up by former Times Executive Editor John Solomon, who quit the 28-year-old Conservative daily in November 2009. The Church turned off the spigot that annually subsidized the Times to the tune of $35 million. As reported previously by "TUOL," the Times newsroom staff has been decimated from its level of 225 in 2002 to fewer than 70 today.

Circulation figures are unavvailable as the Times stopped reporting to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in 2008, when its daily readership topped 86,710.

UPDATE: Gannett Sale Means 1 Paper to Dole Out Honolulu News

Image via Wikipedia

Say "Aloha" to 300 jobs as media conglomerate  Gannett Co. has finalized the sale of The Honolulu Advertiser to Honolulu Star-Bulletin owner David Black. (See "TUOL" post 4/1/10.)

Black intends to merge the two dailies into a broadsheet with a circulation of 135,000 to 140,000, according to a story in today's Advertiser. The surviving publication will employ between 300 and 600, compared to the 900 staffers at the two papers combined.

Gannett originally purchased the Star-Bulletin in 1971 and added the Advertiser in 1993 for a cool $250 million. The Virginia-based media giant sold the Star-Bulletin to Liberty Newspaper, LP in 1993. HA Mgt., Inc. will publish the Advertiser for the next 30 to 60 days until the blending of the two papers is complete.

Coming to Reality TV: Supreme Court Arguments?

Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has forwarded three bills for consideration by the full Senate, including one that would permit televising U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments.

The Sunshine in  the Courtroom Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), authorizes federal chief district and appellate court judges to permit cameras to televise courtroom proceedings. The measure invites the Judicial Conference to develop guidelines for broadcasting courtroom goings-on, along with steps to be taken to shield crime victims and undercover law enforcement agents.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also passed S.B. 446, concerning electronic media access to Supreme Court hearings, that provides: "The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the court, unless the court decides by a vote of the majority of justices that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of  the parties before the court." Sen. Arlen Specter (D.-Pa.) introduced the bill.

The Committee also passed a resolution by a 13-6 vote, S. Res. 339, that expresses the sentiment that the Supreme Court should permit live tv access to open sessions. The "sense of the Senate" resolution is nonbinding.  H.R. 429, the companion bill to S.B. 446, was introduced in January 2009, to the House of Representatives, but is still languishing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Given the Separation of Powers doctrine, it's unsettled whether the Legislative Branch can force the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary to broadcast their proceedings.

Viewers may have to wait awhile to watch: "So You Think You Can Judge?"

Corrections Officials Bar Media Interviews of Death Row Inmate

Image via Wikipedia

On June 18, Ronnie Lee Gardner will be hooded, tethered to a chair, and a bullseye target  placed over his heart. Five sharpshooters will aim at the target with .30 caliber rifles, four of which carry live rounds, and fire.

If Gardner, who faces execution for murdering attorney Michael Burdell during a courthouse escape attempt on April 2, 1985, in the course of which he also wounded bailiff Nick Kirk, feels remorse toward the victim's loved ones or has any thoughts about his incarceration or previous crimes, he will take them to his grave. That's because Utah corrections officials, deviating from past practices, will not permit news media interviews of Gardner, according to The Salt Lake Tribune (www.sltrib.com).

Utah law empowers prison officials to restrict communications with an inmate provided a "reasonable institutional policy" underlies the decision limiting access. Corrections officials contend that permitting media interviews would unduly focus attention on the criminal while ignoring innocent victims of his crime.

Opponents of the move argue that forbidding media interviews violates Gardner's First Amendment rights. At the time of his failed escape attempt, Gardner was appearing in court on 1984 charges of robbery and murder at a Salt Lake City tavern.

News Media Favorite Source: Outsource?

Image by clairegren via Flickr

AdAge.com reports today on a growing trend  among media outlets battered by declining ad revenues and shrinking readership--the use of stables of poorly paid freelancers to provide news content.

Companies such as Santa Monica, Calif.-based Demand Media, Associated Content in Denver, Colo., and New York-based America Online's SEED are providing articles to media giants such as Cox Newspapers, Hachette Filipacchi, and Thomson Reuters.  Freelancers from Associated Content have submitted articles to Woman's Day's Web site and the Atlanta-Constitution, while Demand Media writers regularly are featured in USA Today's Travel Tips section, according to AdAge.com.  Reuters.com has drawn on Associated Content for a series of articles about the economy.

Outsourcing articles previously written by staff reporters is a cost-savings measure. Associated Content, for example, can drawfrom its ranks of 350,000 writers to produce content for which the freelancers are paid anywhere from $5 to $30 per article.  Third party news writing is here to stay,which makes the devoted staff at "TUOL" uneasy and queasy.

Pa. Landlord Loses Libel Suit

Image via Wikipedia

In Charles F. Kurowski v. A. Parker Burroughs, Editor, Observer Publishing Co., Observer-Reporter (Case No. 1391WDA 2009, 210 Pa. Super. 69), Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Robert Freedberg upheld summary judgment for the defendants previously entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in a defamation case brought by the attorney/landlord whose arson-damaged building was cited by the city.

As reported by the Courthouse News Service, Kurowski owns the building at 79-83 North Main St. that housed apartments and an addiction-recovery program, which was targeted by an arsonist. The municipality cited the plaintiff for failing to secure a vacant building.

The Observer-Reporter wrote a series of articles and editorials critical of the plaintiff's post-fire upkeep of the building and efforts to block the city's demolition of the structure, including an editorial entitled "City Should Target Run-down Properties" that ran 8/9/06, and an article headlined: "City on Lookout for Rampant Weeds," that appeared 7/11/07. The paper reported that the landlord plaintiff was cited for weed and grass violations by the city. Also, the Observer-Reporter criticized Kurowski for effecting building repairs at an "agonizingly slow pace."

Kurowski alleged that the defendants defamed him by portraying him as an unscrupulous businessperson and a "slumlord." The Superior Court disagreed, holding: "the expression of opinion in the editorial is not capable of defamatory meaning."  Judge Freedberg also noted the absence of evidence that the editorial's writer based his opinion on undisclosed facts.

ABC News Layoffs Fewer Than Expected

Image via Wikipedia

With more than 300 employees accepting voluntary buyouts, ABC News has limited its latest round of bloodletting to 22 staff layoffs, The Los Angeles Times reports.

Hold the celebration, as the 350-400 ABC staffers pink-slipped represent more than 25 percent of the 1,400-person news division (see "TUOL" post 2/24/10).  Casualties include ABC's special events department, as well as a policy shift at "20/20" and "Primetime," where freelancers are replacing full-time employees.

Bureaus were hard hit too, with L.A. losing 40 plus positions, including high-profile veteran correspondents Brian Rooney and Lisa Fletcher, while San Francisco shed Laura Marquez.  Except for Washington, D.C., ABC News plans to shutter its bureaus.

Forget Nightline--someone throw ABC News a "lifeline."