Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 1

Tiffany Murray

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids

Tiffany Murray
University of Indianapolis
November 13, 2014

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 2

Tiffany Murray

Obamas Marriage Explodes: Wife confronts him over cheating, Taylor Lautner, Out
and Proud, Kim Kardashian Pregnant and Alone. No matter what checkout line you are
standing in, these false headlines seem to be on every tabloid in the store. The question is, how
are tabloid companies allowed to publish false statements and not be sued? With fame comes a
lot of media, so how do celebrities and public officials avoid being constantly defamed? Its not
an easy lifestyle for most public figures and tabloid headlines surely make us all aware of that.
As defined in Merriam Webster, a tabloid is a newspaper having pages half the size of
those of a standard newspaper, typically popular in style and dominated by headlines,
photographs, and sensational stories. Life & Style and the National Enquirer are two examples
of a tabloid. A person who writes for a tabloid and a person who writes for a newspaper have two
completely different set of rules, which can be obviously noted when reading a headline of the
National Enquirer (Kenneally).
According to Law.com, defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another
which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the
media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Libel is defined as to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which
will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule,
hatred, scorn or contempt of others. This being the reason why tabloids are libel and not slander
because libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation.
Now that tabloid, defamation and libel have all been defined, what is the definition of a
public figure? Unfortunately for them, a public figure has a different set of rules then the normal,
everyday private person such as I would have. A public figure is in the law of defamation (libel
and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official,

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 3

Tiffany Murray

politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Examples of a public figure
would be President Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Brad Pitt. A public figure can be named that,
whether or not they actually choose to be. For example, if a man who saves a child from
drowning in the Pacific Ocean is deemed a hero in his community, he is now a public figure. Just
as the definition states, he is now a person of public interest because of his heroic decision.
Suing on behalf of defamation can be a difficult challenge. Defamation law tries to
balance competing interests and looks at both sides of the situation. On one side of the situation,
it should be illegal to tell lies that can ruin a persons reputation, but on the other side, you have
the first amendment right, which allows American citizens the right to free speech. The
marketplace of ideas is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same
opinions or beliefs.
For something to be considered defamation for a private person they must prove all four
of these happened; the statement was published, false, injurious and unprivileged. Basically, the
person stating the false accusations must act negligent in doing so. However, a person of public
interest must all of those four acts plus actual malice (hate). According to Legal-Encyclopedia,
actual malice means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care
whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth.
Private persons who are defamed have more protection than public figures, because of the
fact that public figures must prove actual malice. Its much easier without having to prove that
someone acted in hate and spitefulness, because those arent always easy to see at the surface of
things.
This is one of the main reasons why it is uncommon for public figures to take a
defamation case to court. In most cases a tabloid is publishing stories to get people to read what

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 4

Tiffany Murray

they have to say, not actually acting in malice toward the celebrity. It happens every day that a
false statement is published about a celebrity and it would take a ridiculous amount of time for
the court system to get through every single one of them (Kirtley).
This then leads to the Supreme Court case New York Co. v. Sullivan, which took place in
1964 and is why actual malice must be proven today. The Supreme Court determined that
public officials could only recover damages in libel actions based on criticisms of their official
conduct if they could prove publication was made with actual malice, defined as knowledge of
falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This has been one of the main decisions in support of
freedom of the press.
In this case, the New York Times published an advertisement about possible solicited
funds to defend Martin Luther King Jr. The advertisement defined actions against civil rights
protesters in which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama, as well as being
inaccurate. While referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated: "They have
arrested [King] seven times..." But at that point, he had only been arrested four times. This
advertisement created a negative influence towards the Montgomery State Police and caused for
them to make things right. Even though Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B.
Sullivan, was not named directly in the advertisement, the inaccurate statements by the police
were considered defamatory to Sullivan as well, because of his duty as a part of the police
department.
The court ruled in favor of the New York Times in a 9-0 vote. In sum, the court ruled that
"the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the
conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge
that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)" (Davidson). The court found

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 5

Tiffany Murray

that the advertisement failed to prove actual malice and that it couldnt be proven. There was no
proof that the New York Times intended to cause harm to Sullivan, as well as the rest of the
Montgomery Police Department. New York Times v. Sullivan is the reason why actual malice
must be proven today in a public figures defamation case.
This year (2014) was the 50th anniversary for the New York Times v. Sullivan case, and
the United States Supreme Court reflected on the state of the freedom of the press. The editorial
board of The New York Times gave a statement:
The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any
attempt to squelch criticism of public officialseven if falseas antithetical to the
central meaning of the First Amendment. Today, our understanding of freedom of the
press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles
remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide
publishercapable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions, and
also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.
They also added that the Sullivan decision was "the clearest and most forceful defense of press
freedom in American history.
One of the biggest questions this issue faces is how do tabloids get around not being
sued? Yes, malice must be proven but there are other factors that tabloids take to make sure they
are not sued. The key to tabloid story writing is that something doesn't have to be true to print,
someone just has to have said that it was true Tabloid writers can bring in sources and experts to
basically say what they want them to. Writers for tabloids dont do much outside research,
different to journalists for a newspaper. Tabloids can call someone close to them, ask a question
about a certain public figure and if its juicy enough, that statement will be used (Hunsaker).

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 6

Tiffany Murray

For example, a writer might interview a witness for a story about Justin Bieber and ask,
"Do you think Justin Bieber was a part of the bank robbery last night?" If the witness says yes,
that particular story might quote the witness as saying, "Justin Bieber: Guilty of Last Nights
Bank Robbery, when in reality they have no evidence.
Tabloid writers may also quote "experts", even if that expert has no credentials. These
writers have no ethical standings, or any laws they must follow because of the freedom of the
press right (Hunsaker).
As for the public relations side to things, some publicists may offer up stories of their
client to get free publicity in exchange for those tabloids to never run negative or harsh stories.
This causes long term friction between the two and may even lead to tabloids wanting revenge at
some point, when or if the publicist doesnt do want the tabloid wants (Hagans).
During the days of the 1950s and 60s, is when the realization that tabloids could write
most of the things they wanted to without the fear of being sued. It can be quoted in his book, "I
Watched a Wild Hog Eat My Baby," that former National Enquirer editor Bill Sloan wrote about
why public figures wouldnt waste their time suing tabloid companies,
"There are two overwhelming reasons why no celebrity of any stature would stoop to sue
a gutter-level publication like the Informer even in clear-cut cases of libel. For one thing,
the publicity surrounding this type of suit could prove a thousand times more damaging
than the original fabrication. For another, the publisher probably didn't have any money
to pay damages anyway."
Bill Sloan is a respected military historian and former newspaper reporter and author.
Then in the 1980s and 90s, tabloids that began circulating in supermarkets reached more
than ten million readers, those tabloid companies that owned them had billions of dollars. And

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 7

Tiffany Murray

now, those two factors from the 1950s and 60s, no longer applied. This is when the famous
actress Carol Burnetts story made headlines and she sued the National Enquirer in 1981. This
particular story in the National Enquirer was one accusing her of public drunkenness.
Burnett took it the California Court of Appeals which ruled in her favor and said that the
National Enquirer acted with actual malice to intentionally injure Burnetts reputation. The facts
to this story were Carol Burnett had two to three glasses of wine at a restaurant in Washington
DC. She then rain into Henry Kissinger once leaving the restaurant and the National Enquirer
quoted this, In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with
another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of
her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over
one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn't amused and 'accidentally'
spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress. (Lindsey) This was the first libel suit ever to go to
trial in The National Enquirer's 28-year (at the time) history.
Singer Aretha Franklin also sued in a defamation case against Star in 2001. The headline
they published stated, Aretha Franklin Drinking Herself into Grave, from a December article
in 2000. Franklin stated that they falsely identified her abuse of alcohol, and that this was the
reason for all of her concert cancellations. The court ruled in favor of Franklin. Cameron Diaz,
David Beckham and Robin Williams have all sued for libel cases as well and have been
victorious.
The topic of libel in tabloids is more than certain a complicated one. Most major tabloid
companies will now keep lawyers on hand to read through each article or story written before it
is published. These lawyers know the ins and outs of defamation and just how much information
to include before it becomes libelous.

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 8

Tiffany Murray

One act of defense that the defendants will try to use is the neutral report privilege. If one
person publishes a defamatory statement and another person uses that same statement, in most
cases the both of them are liable for the statement and can be sued. However, with the neutral
report privilege it is now a common defense law against these defamation lawsuits.
By using the neutral report defense, a defendant can claim that they were not indicating
the statement said was true but simply stating they were reporting the statement in a neutral
manner even if they too doubt the truthfulness of the statement. For the defense to succeed, it is
almost always required that the reporting is unbiased and in the public interest.
One of the first cases to use the neutral report privilege was the Edwards v. National
Audubon Society which happened in 1977. This case was one of a dispute between the National
Audubon Society and a group of scientists. The National Audubon Society reportedly accused
the scientists of being paid to lie by pesticide companies about the concerning of effects that
pesticides have on birds. The New York Times, at the time was trying to report on both sides of
the story and was sued by the scientists. A federal appellate court recognized that the reporting
was both neutral and in the public interest, therefore making it ok to publish since The New York
Times argued they were using neutral reporting.
Another case that is known for using the neutral report privilege was Khalid Khawar v.
the Globe in 1989. At the time the Globe was a national weekly newspaper and published a story
that reported on allegations that were previously reported in a book by former CIA agent Robert
Morrow. The reports stated that the Shah of Iran's secret police collaborated with the Mafia to
carry out the 1968 assassination of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and that Ali Ahmand was
the one who carried out the assassination.

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 9

Tiffany Murray

The book also portrayed an enlarged picture of Khalid Khawar standing next to Kennedy
and an arrow pointing to him just moments before the assassination. The caption stated: Iranian
secret police killed Bobby Kennedy. Khawar was a photojournalist at the time reporting on the
political rally for the Pakistani periodical. He had asked a friend to take the picture well aware
that the TV cameras and other photographers could possibly capture it as well. Khawar brought
the action against the Globe stating that that the book's accusation, which was repeated in the
Globe article, that he had assassinated Kennedy, was false and defamatory and had caused him
substantial injury. At the time, 21 years after the Kennedy assassination, when the article was
published, Khawar and his family were receiving death threats as well as his car being
vandalized.
The trial court granted Khawar a case and, the jury returned, among others, these special
verdicts:
1. The Globe article contained statements about Khawar that were false and defamatory.
2. Globe published the article negligently and with malice or oppression.
3. With respect to Kennedy's assassination, Khawar was a private rather than a public
figure; and
4. The Globe article was a neutral and accurate report of the Morrow book.
The court reviewed the case and stated that in the neutral reporter privilege matter of law that
the Globe article was not an accurate and neutral report of the statements and charges made in
the Morrow book (Hagans). The courts ruled in Khawars favor and granted him over
$1,000,000 in damages. This case was one of the rare exceptions in which case the tabloids lose
their lawsuits.

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 10

Tiffany Murray

Some other defenses that are used in many defamation cases, aside from the neutral
report privilege, is, truth, opinion, consent to the publication, absolute privilege, qualified
privilege and retraction of the allegedly defamatory statement (Kirtley). Truth means just that. A
defamatory statement is false, so if the defendant cane prove it was true the case will be
dismissed. Opinion is one of the most commonly used defenses. The defendant usually uses this
because its hard to prove otherwise. However, if someone says I think David stole from his
employer, and David loses his job then David will most likely win the case. The defendant can
use the opinion defense because he said the words I think but in a defamation lawsuit, a jury
will be instructed to look at all of the circumstances. If the jury for any reason finds the
defendant to have made a statement knowing it wasnt true can still be sued and liable for the
statement. Certain types of communication have a right to absolute privilege, meaning the person
making the statement has the absolute right to make that statement at that time, even if it is
defamatory. Examples of when this is allowed are in judicial proceedings, by high government
officials, and in between spouses. Qualifies privileges mean that the person making the alleged
statement has some right to the statement. Some examples to this are citizen testimony during
legislative proceedings, statements made in self-defense or to warn others about a harmful or
danger and a published book or film reviews that constitute fair criticism. Consent and retraction
of the statement both mean as they sound as well. If the one suing gave consent to the statement
then the defendant can use that and if they retract the allegedly defamatory statement, that often
will serve as a defense to any defamation lawsuit.
When talking about tabloids, its not only articles they can get in trouble for. Pictures are
a big part of libel in tabloids as well when the caption included is false. An even bigger situation
that celebrities are now facing is the privacy of their children. A California bill (Senate Bill 606)

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 11

Tiffany Murray

was passed last year in 2013 aimed at keeping paparazzi away from children of celebrities. Halle
Berry and Jennifer Garner were two of the celebrities who took part in getting the new bill
passed. Garner stated that pictures of her children were portrayed in a negative light, causing her
daughter to be scared to go to school. Because Garners daughter is not a public figure, they won
the case which lead to the passing of the new bill (Reuters).
There are many cases when libel and defamation can affect tabloids. There have been
many cases in which someone has sued on behalf of defamation and won, and there have also
been cases of the plaintiff losing as well. Because of the defense techniques a defendant can use
it is difficult to win a defamation law suit. Most celebrities dont want to take the time and
money either to take tabloids to court that may not even have the money the celebrity is looking
for. It is hard for public figures to prove that actual malice had occurred and that the person
making the defamatory statement was acting in hate.
New York Times v. Sullivan has defined what actual malice is today and is still referenced
in most defamation cases. Carol Burnett, Aretha Franklin and others have been lucky enough to
win in such cases and be awarded the money which caused them reputation damage.
So how do public figures avoid be constantly defamed? They dont. Either they live with
it day to day, or if the statement is defamatory enough to hurt their career some will take it to the
courts.

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 12

Tiffany Murray

Works cited
(1991 January 4). How the supermarket tabloids stay out of court. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/04/news/how- the-supermarkettabloids-stay-out-of-court.html
Communication Law Writers Group. (2013). Communication and the law. W. Wat Hopkins
(Ed.). Northport, AL: Vision Press.
Davidson, K. (2010, August 25). Time warp: August 25, 1997 (eastwood v. national enquirer).
Retrieved from http://www.blawgertainment.com/2010/08/25/time-warp-august-25-1997-v-national-enquirer/
Defamation. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/defamation
Hagans, W. G. (2007). Who does the first amendment protect?: Why the plaintiff should bear the
burden of proof in any defamation action. Review ofLitigation. Pp. 613-640.
Hunsaker, D.M. (1979). Freedom and responsibility in first amendment theory: Defamation
law and media credibility. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 65(1), 25-35.
Kenneally, T. (2011, September 2). National enquirer gets slammed with $15,000 defamation
lawsuit over Caylee Anthony story. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-enquirer-is-getting-slammed-with-15000defamation-lawsuit-over-caylee-anthony-story-2011-9
Kirtley, J. (1999). Defamation judgment puts onus on media. American Journalism Review,
21(1), 70.

Libel and Defamation in Tabloids 13

Tiffany Murray

Lindsey, R. (1981 March 27). Carol Burnett given $1.6 million in suit against national enquirer.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/27/us/carol-burnett-given-1.6-millionin-suit-against-national-enquirer.htm
Neutral report privilege. Retrieved from http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/neutral-report
privilege
Reuters, David. (2013). California bill protecting children of celebrities from paparazzi signed
into law. Retrieved from http://journalism.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/Globe.htm
Sloan, Bill. (2001). I Watched a Wild Hog Eat My Baby. New York, NY: Scribner.
Tabloid. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tabloid
Time Inc., v. Hill. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to
epstein/privacy/time-inc-v-hill/