opinion__
Court's libel ruling
negligence of its own
Of course the media in Oregon is going to cry foul regarding
the Oregon Court of Appeals appalling decision in the
Willamette Week v. Bank of Oregon libel case.
It is foul.
The court ruled that private parties need only prove that
defamatory statements in the news media were the result of
negligence — and not from the standard of malice.
This ruling seems to broaden the grounds for, and to en
courage, the filing of libel suits. The plaintiff is required only to
prove the defendant was at least negligent in ascertaining if the
defaming material was true or not.
This is referred to as simple negligence as opposed to gross
negligence. A plaintiff against the media has only to establish
that the news media failed to exercise a professional standard of
care, or, as stated in the court’s opinion, that usually exercised
by "a reasonably prudent, careful and skillful practitioner."
In the lawsuit Willamette Week was accused of failing to
verify all the statements in an article concerning the Bank of
Oregon and its president Homer Wadsworth. By failing to verify
statements the lawsuit claimed Willamette Week published a
one-sided account of the bank's financial dealing with several
Portland businessmen.
There was a substantial amount of money wagered on the
court's decision. The bank claimed $4 million in lost business
due to the article. Wadsworth sought $2 million for alleged men
tal suffering and anguish. He claimed to have lost $1.4 million in
dividends due to the article.
The money notwithstanding, the press clause in the First
Amendment of the Constitution and its application to news
media in Oregon was riding on the case.
Possibly more damning than the charge of bias in reporting
is the claim the bulk of the article came primarily from one
source.
It should be chiseled in stone — and probably is somewhere
— that two sources (or more) do a balanced and accurate s^pry
make. Journalists, good journalists, always strive for cor
roborating evidence. That usually comes with more than one
source.
But this situation is the ideal. In rare instances one source is
all that is available. And what if the source is unimpeachable?
Much of the Watergate investigative reporting was the result of
single source material.
Few, if any, journalists in the mainstream news media seek
to produce articles with libelous content. It's simply career
suicide.
However, with this latest ruling, a journalist runs the risk of
seriously damaging his reputation and credibility if his articles
even possess an inadvertent tinge of simple negligence.
And how will simple negligence be construed? Is simple
negligence the overlooking of a source? What of the inability to
contact a source? Can this also be legally defined as simple
negligence? If a journalist spells a name incorrectly is this simple
negligence?
The court of public opinion usually weighs most heavily on
the shoulders of journalists as they sit hunched over video
display terminals. They know that bias in reporting will be met
with disdain by the reading public.
Perhaps the single most important issue in the ruling (along
with diluting provable malice) is-this opening up of scrutiny into
the news media by the courts to investigate the lengths it has to
go to ascertain the truth in the light of simple negligence.
We agree with the lawyers for Willamette Week, that simple
negligence isn't appropriate involving the freedom of the press
as protected under the U.S. Constitution.
The standard that should supersede all others — and will as
this case goes up the chain of litigation in the appeal process —
is the U.S. Supreme Court's. The Supreme Court has a criteria of
actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth as its ap
plicable standard.
The Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association and the
American Civil Liberties Union have filed briefs in response to
the court's decision. The case they present will probably be suc
cessful. But, in the meantime, the work of Oregon journalists
will be under the squinting scrutiny of the courts and hampered
by this foul decision.
letters
Parking appeal
I applaud the concern and en
thusiasm demonstrated by Alan
Scearce, president of the Inter
fraternity Council; Phi Kappa Psi,
and the more than 370 co-signers
of a petition presented to the City
Council during the public hearing
held Monday, Oct. 10 concerning
the appeal of the West University
On-Street Parking Program. Their
individual actions and support of
those taken by the ASUO are wor
thy of praise.
More significant and encourag
ing was the impact of our united
and cooperative efforts. It is evi
dent that University students who
represent a variety of lifes*yies
and philosophies are capable of
rallying in defense around a com
mon concern.
I look forward to working with
the IFC and Creek system in the
future and hope this trend will ex
pand to include other groups
which historically have not cross
ed existing barriers. Alan Scearce,
Phi Kappa Psi, and others: Thank
you.
Barbara Hart McCarthy
assistant coord., University affairs
Nothing of sort
Stewart Shaw, (No Message,
Oct.11) tells us that "there is no
message from Cod about abortion
in...the Bible.'" That the Bible
contains no explicit reference to
or prohibition of abortion merely
confirms that it was a crime so
heinious as to be unthinkable.
Sufficient was the injunction
"Thou shalt not kill." Children
were viewed as a gift from the
Lord, for it was God who opened
the womb and allowed concep
tion (Gen. 30:22). Barrenness was
considered a curse by the
Israelites, for it meant the possible
extinction of the family name.
Shaw believes that "to be a
human being... happens at
birth." But the scriptures he cites
to support his claim do nothing of
Oregon daily ■
emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday through In
day except during exam week and vacation*, by the Oregon Datly
Emerald Publishing Co,, at the University of Oregon. Eugene. CM.
17403
The Emerald operates independently ol the University with
otfices on the third Moor ot the Erb Memorial Union and is a
member ot the Associated Press
*•*-1*11
*•*-1712
*•*-4141
*•*4111
*•*-»! I
Id it or
Managing fdtlor
Nnw (drlor
Assistant News (dtlor
fditonel Page Editor
Photo tditor
Sports (dtlor
SuMinrs (dtlor
(nlertatnmeni tditor
Assistant I ntertainment t dtlor
Might Idttor
Attottnr (dltors
Higher tdu< 41 ton
Departments end Schools
Studeri? Government
features
Points s
t (immunity
General tuft
Advertising Manage'
C lassdied Advertising
Produc lion Manager
( • mt rotter
Debbie Howled
Sandy lohnstone
(rank Shew
Brenda Thornton
Cort terneld
Dave Keo
Ooug levy
* |ohn Heety
Angele Allen Morgen
Kim l erlson
Sendy lohnslone
Doug Mesh
Melisse Martin
|im Moore
loan Herman
Brooks Darett
Mk hete Matassa
Darlene Core
Salty Otiar
Victoria Koc h
lean Ownbey
the sort. Scripture uniformly
teaches that life begins prenatally.
Luke points to the humanness of
the unborn in his description of
John the Baptist (Luke 1:44). So too
the Call of Jeremiah: “And before
you were born I consecrated
you." (Jer. 1:5).
Shaw maintains further that
since we are co-creators with God
we may terminate gestation at any
time. But from the fact that we
may be co-creators it does not
follow that we may "uncreate."
Women are free not to conceive
and so to exercise their
prerogative of choosing (the
prerogative of abstaining from
creation). Men likewise are free to
avoid participating in the child
making process. But after
pregnancy the same options no
longer exist; to annihilate is not to
abstain from making anything (ex
cept mature decisions).
ScotI Calef
philosophy
Disgrace
It is a disgrace that any Universi
ty official should act in such a
spineless manner as to say "We
can't do anything except abide by
the law" when faced with a clearly
illegal, immoral and
discriminatory decree (such as the
Solomon Amendment) from
above. This is what allows fascism
to get a grip on a country — giving
in at each step along the way until
hopelessly enmeshed. They say
that to do otherwise would jeopar
dize financial assistance for some
other students. What they are do
ing jeopardizes the basic rights
and freedoms of everyone in the
country.
This so-called "law" is a typical
Reagan administration product
because:
1) It begins with the wrong
premise that the right to draft the
profits of draft people — but of
course not the right to draft the
profits of defense contractors
engorging themselves from the
public treasury.
2) Among prospective draftees it
targets only a very small minority
— those who really want a good
education.
3) Among this small minority it
only targets the poor, who cannot
come to college without financial
assistance of some kind. Those
who can afford to come anyway
are untouched.
4) Among this tiny minority it
only targets those with enough
guts and intelligence to challenge
the "law." The cowards, who
don't like the "law" but sign
anyway to get the money, are not
affected, except that their
character and self-esteem is de
meaned. The very ones most
deserving of assistance and most
likely to make positive contribu
tions to society are denied an
education.
Melissa Barker was not even
targeted by the law, but, realizing
that rights and freedoms mean
nothing unless one is willing to
exercise them at some personal
risk and in the face of official
discouragement, she has
challenged this "law."
Investment in worthwhile peo
ple is the best investment there is,
for ourselves and for our country.
Since the University is unwilling
to make any investment in this
case I hope that at least some
members of the University com
munity and of the community at
large may be moved to do so. Both
moral and financial support are
important.
Bayard McConnaughey
biology
Distasteful
As a Vietnam era veteran who
finds the Solomon Amendment
unjust and distasteful, I applaud
Melissa Barker's stand.
The University has no business
policing the laws of the Selective
Service System.
Geo. Bergeron
senior, journalism
letters policy
The Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing fair
comment on topics of interest to the University community.
Letters to the editor must be limited to 250 words, typed, sign
ed and the identification of the writer must be verified when the
letter is turned in. The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter
for length, style or content.
"Comment" is an Emerald opinion feature submitted by
members of the University community. "Comment" columns
must be limited to 500 words and typed.
Letters to the editor and "Comment" columns should be
turned into the Emerald office, Suite 300, EMU.
Frutiv (VtnKor 14 1QA1