Judge Claims Fox News Defamed Him (sues for $7m)

[Newsjock]

Source: Courthouse News Service

CHICAGO (CN) - A Cook County Judge demands $7 million from Fox Television, claiming it defamed him by reporting that he was at home on a weekday afternoon. Judge James Ryan claims Fox TV broadcast film of a car in the driveway of a house, claiming they were his - but it wasn't his car and it wasn't his house. Ryan claims Fox admitted that the next day, saying, "Our bad."

In his complaint in Cook County Court, Judge Ryan says that Fox claimed to be doing a "joint investigation" with the Better Government Association.

"(D)uring the May 24, 2010 news broadcast Fox News alleged Judge James Ryan was at his residence by early afternoon and showed his alleged vehicle in the driveway of his alleged home," the complaint states. "In fact, the vehicle shown was not judge Ryan's vehicle nor was the residence shown Judge Ryan's. Further, Judge Ryan was not at home as claimed by the reporters, Dane Placko, Larry Yellen and Andy Shaw."

Ryan claims that immediately after Fox broadcast its accusatory report, he called the Fox news desk "and talked to Dane Placko and advised him of the misrepresentation and false statements."

The next day, reporter Robin Robinson admitted the mistake on Fox News, stating, "Our bad," Judge Ryan says.


Read more: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/04/27820.htm

[randr]

1. They need to be sued for every lie the tell.

[Bitwit1234]

10. I have been posting that for over a year.

I wish I had the money I would file a complaint each and every time. they would have to soon shut Fox down. Because if you can prove it is a lie you win the case. And if you set up your DVD and do nothing but record Fox you will have a wealth of info to file against them.

[alfredo]

2. At least they admitted their mistake, usually they don't. Still,

they should have gotten it right the first time. Putting beside their bias, they are still very sloppy when it comes to fact checking.

[Jumping John]

5. How do you get a lie right? n/t

[joanmj]

7. For sure!

[alfredo]

14. It is a mistake to lie. It is a wrong choice. They chose to

lie, got caught and admitted to that lie. Even if they chose to be truthful, they are still sloppy in their reporting and not worthy of being put in the category of journalist.

Until they value truth over agenda, good practices above convenience, they will be nothing more than a scandal sheet.

[Scuba]

16. They're not sloppy when it comes to fact checking...

...they simply make shit up to serve their interests, or those of their masters.

[alfredo]

20. That's what I am getting at. Even if they magically start telling the truth, they

still have to do something about their sloppy reporting. That's management's fault. They do not demand good journalism.

[Scuba]

22. Nothing sloppy about it. They do that on purpose.

[alfredo]

23. All of Murdochs rags have a casual relationship with the truth.

[tomm2thumbs]

3. Example of how Fox News 'does' their reporting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ4gAAVW2k

Altering people's photos and running it with their 'news'

[louis-t]

6. I am speechless. They get away with this?

How stupid are their viewers.

[Tempest]

9. How stupid are their viewers?

Very stupid.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/

[nichomachus]

4. It's a good political play by the judge, but

As he's a "public figure," he would fall under the New York Times/Sullivan ruling by the Supreme Court. It would be nearly impossible for him to win this suit.

[DarthDem]

8. Actually, Not Really

The "public figure" heightened standard just requires that the plaintiff show reckless disregard for the truth (or knowledge that the statements made were false) on the part of the defamer. In this case, it's pretty obvious that Faux was reckless in not checking the address and in claiming that a car belonged to the judge when, in fact, they had no idea.

However, you raise a good point in that I'm not sure how the judge was damaged here, especially if they admitted their mistake the next day. And you do have to show damages. Still, it is a good political move, and it's great to see someone hitting back at these ridiculous tools.

[Tempest]

12. He has a good case

He was accused by Faux of being "lazy and his actions amounted to malfeasance" as well.

Not only that, but he was defamed on Faux's web site even after Faux made the apology.

[nichomachus]

13. See post above -- he would need to show damages

[Tempest]

17. Not true

The elements of a defamation (libel or slander) claim are:

* A false and defamatory communication about the plaintiff
* Publication to a third party
* Fault amounting to either negligence or intent on the defendant's part
* Harm or damage to the plaintiff.

Where libel is concerned, damages are presumed and the plaintiff need not prove special harm. Special harm is harm to one's reputation that results in monetary losses.

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_law_of_defamation

[donco6]

18. Normally, yes, but not this time.

They didn't even show the slightest attempt at verifying the truth of their report - not knowing it wasn't his HOUSE? That's going to be bad for them. They have to show that they carried out some due diligence in verifying the truth - which is a pretty low bar. But not that low.

[Jamastiene]

11. More power to him.

I hope he wins and sets a nice precedent for others to sue too. If Faux News is saying it, it is most likely a lie. That's actually how you can tell when they are lying: their lips are moving.

More power to him.

[montanto]

15. and an additional 7Million for saying "our bad."

[donco6]

19. PUnitive damages - yes. n/t

[classysassy]

21. Fox news

for nuts not for human consumption.