Buzzfeed is carrying a report today that its own editors might want to pay close attention to, in light of recent events.
The story is about a blogger whom Melania Trump is suing for defamation. Webster Tarpley blogged in August that it was “widely known” that Mrs. Trump had been a high-end escort, and that her husband — then a candidate for president — was “suffering from from a full-blown nervous breakdown” as a result of this becoming known.
Buzzfeed’s Zoe Tillman notes that this was good enough to clear the very high bar that American judges set for defamation cases against public figures. On those grounds, the judge rejected Tarpley’s motion to dismiss the case:
In urging to have the lawsuit dismissed, Tarpley’s lawyer, Danielle Giroux, argued on Friday that Melania Trump’s lawyers failed to lay out in the lawsuit that Tarpley acted with “actual malice,” a requirement in defamation cases that involve public figures. Burrell rejected that argument, pointing to language in the lawsuit that said Tarpley published the article “while consciously doubting the truth of the claims.”
Giroux said Tarpley had a right to report on rumors, even if he didn’t know whether they were true. There was a public interest in knowing about allegations against Melania Trump that could affect Trump’s campaign, as well as his presidency if he won, Giroux said. Burrell said that the public interest was different for Melania Trump, who was not running for office.
Note that the judge, Sharon Burrell, did not rule that Tarpley had shown “actual malice” in publishing a “defamatory” statement — that’s something a jury would have to decide. She merely ruled that Mrs. Trump’s lawyers had properly claimed that he had shown “actual malice” with his reckless disregard for the truth.
Recently, Buzzfeed published an unverified document containing extremely salacious claims about Melania’s husband, even while publicly expressing doubts about the document’s provenance and veracity. Those doubts were inspired by the fact that some of the things in the document were already known to be false.
And more recently, Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith argued in an op-ed that the Trump era, and Trump’s infamous tendency to say things that are just false, may justify journalists doing more of this sort of thing — publishing things without first making sure they are true.
[W]e need to develop new rules that adhere to the core values of honesty and respect for our audience. That means debunking falsehoods, and being transparent with readers about our process of reporting. Sometimes, it means publishing unverified information in a transparent way that informs our users of its provenance, its impact and why we trust or distrust it.
I strongly disagree with the idea of reacting to Trump’s lack of credibility by diminishing your own. But if my reasoning does not seem persuasive, then the well-known legal issues in this Tarpley case should strike fear in any journalistic enterprise considering taking Smith’s advice.
The publication of allegations you yourself doubt, in certain contexts, becomes a recipe for “actual malice” and a jury trial. You are just begging for some judge (as in this Tarpley case) to decide that your behavior justifies putting the question to a jury. And at that point, anything can happen.
