Harmful Media Exposure:

Beware Of the Hidden Sources of Damage

TASA ID: 2156

Journalism is the act of gathering and presenting news and information and its mission is to inform the public.  When I was a reporter for the New York Times, we took pride in its motto “all the news that’s fit to print.”  Of course, that isn’t the most important responsibility of journalism.  It is “fair and balanced” reporting.  What that means is this.  “Fair” means honest, truthful and unbiased while “balanced” means equality to both sides in terms of the information presented, when, how and where.  Journalism must be based on objectivity, meaning journalists must make every effort to report the news and information without allowing their preconceptions to influence what they present.  

The media takes many forms – print (e.g. newspapers, magazines, specialty publications) and broadcast (e.g. radio, television).  In this internet age, the media can also be found online and provide another forum for disseminating information through the written word (e.g. articles, blogs, tweets) and verbally (e.g. videos, podcasts).  Offline or online, the media is a powerful force in impacting perception or public opinion (despite the fact that polls show trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly is at its  lowest levels).

Countless lawsuits are filed each year against various forms of media by individuals, businesses, institutions, and other entities for libel (written statement) or slander (verbal statement) which are negative communications that are considered defamatory and lead to a negative perception or damage to the recipient’s image, reputation, brand, etc.  In some cases though, the media is protected if it comes in the form of an editorial, column, commentary, blog, etc.; especially when the communication is clearly labeled as opinion (albeit false statements are still actionable).  

Often the defamation by the media is there for all to see (e.g. blatantly false statements which are indefensible).  However, there are innumerable other ways by which the media can intentionally tarnish its target by negatively impacting the perception or opinion of it all; under the guise of straight, objective reporting (e.g. deserved or not, think Donald Trump).  In most cases, these ways are not detectable.  If intentional, they also can be more damaging and effective than putting the information out in the open because those absorbing it are not conscious of what is happening.  A few examples:                                   

• The amount of coverage provided on a story with a negative subject (e.g. size of article/report, how many on given day, how many days/weeks they continue, is it warranted, proportional, overkill or bordering on harassment)
• The location of a story/report (e.g. front or back page, which section, placement on page or when in the news report)
• Photos/video accompanying story/report (e.g. content of visuals, whose in them, what people are doing, faces look good or bad, are they deceptive to the thrust of story/report)
• Whose assigned to write the article/air the report (e.g. some reporters associated with certain types of stories, example: investigative reporter sends signal something could be amiss)
• Not allowing the subject, when information presented, opportunity to refute some or all of the negative information 
• Photos/videos can be negative and hold a person up to ridicule even if unintentional by the media (e.g. show private body parts, show person doing something that would reflect on bad manners, habits, personal hygiene)
• Use of unnamed sources providing negative information which impacted subject can’t challenge or confront.

In instances that involve a dispute or contrasting views in a story/report (e.g. two sides), there are numerous means through which the media can slant the coverage in favor of one side while damaging the other side, all the while appearing to be objective, including:

• Providing more coverage to one side’s position than the others.
  Placement of each side’s information (e.g. whose side is presented first and is the other’s equal in terms of attention)
• Are the visual aspects (e.g. photos, videos) equal in time, position and content and provide equal impressions.
• If outside people other than the two sides are interviewed or quoted, are those supporting each side equal in numbers, stature, extent of coverage, meaningfulness of what they are addressing?
• If research/information/opinions/statistics from outside sources introduced, it is equal and balanced to both sides.

The “bottom line” is this.  Normal types of media defamation (e.g. libel, slander) are generally easy to detect and easy to determine if it is legally actionable because it can be traced to the damage to the recipient’s image and reputation or the negative perception or opinion incurred as a result of it.  It’s the “hidden” ways that the media can slant coverage to create a negative impression or cast the recipient in a negative light that bear watching in terms of whether the media may be accountable and subject to litigation.  

_________________ 
TASA Article Disclaimer

This article discusses issues of general interest and does not give any specific legal or business advice pertaining to any specific circumstances.  Before acting upon any of its information, you should obtain appropriate advice from a lawyer or other qualified professional.

This article may not be duplicated, altered, distributed, saved, incorporated into another document or website, or otherwise modified without the permission of TASA and the author (TASA ID #: 2156). Contact marketing@tasanet.com for any questions.