cobra said:
tykedoe,
You are bootstrapping your own argument. First you stated, in a completely ipse dixit manner that it is an official government document.
That is not an official government document, nor does anything on that paper indicate it as such. There is nothing on the paper that indicates it is a product of the police department, contain a signature, or bear any of the official approval of a government document.
Again, you don't have the slightest inclination of what you're talking about.
It
IS an official government document. Your assumption is that it is not.
Second, if this were not a government document, TO and his people would
SUE. I guarantee you they will not. Do you know why?
1. Because it is a statement that the publicist gave to the police and she knows she did which is why she can't come right out and say, categorically, she did not give those statements.
2. A government document doesn't have to be signed to be a government document. It simply has to be initiated by someone in the government and passed to another source, especially if it is involving investigatory matters.
Now let me say that it may not have been a "finalized" government document. But it is an official government document because if it is unofficial, it could be destroyed. It will not be destroyed because it becomes a part of the overall investigation into what happened and what was said that night.
Again, I've handle such things as a reporter. You're wrong and simply reguritating what you
THINK is the case against someone who used to handle such documents and view such documents on a regular basis.
It only becomes a "government document" when it is the official document of the government. Again, something merely written on government letterhead does not transform an otherwise unverified source into a protected source.
Again, that's not how it works. If this case were ever to go to court, that piece of information would be a part of the lawsuit. If it is not a government document, it could be destroyed. But you
CANNOT destroy, alter or change government documents. To do so would land you in jail. In fact, when I worked in one city years ago, there was a case where a Police Chief tried to alter government documents to protect the mayor, whose daughter got into trouble with the law. He was prosecuted for altering government records.
So, again, I doubt you know what you're talking about. That document may not have been a "final" document, but it very much was a government document.
And everyone in the media knows it which is why they reported it and why WFAA, the Dallas Morning News and every other outlet in the Dallas area published it. If it were not a government document, I can assure you with my 20 years of experience in journalism, the media would not have so much as "whispered" TO tried to commit suicide.
Here is where you bootstrap your argument. You correctly note that if something is reported from a legal document, then there is qualified immunity for the press to print it. This is true from Supreme Court rulings. But the thing that is reported must be a truthful reporting of what occurred in the case. That is, you have qualified immunity reporting the facts of the trial without regards to the empirical truthfulness of the court findings or testimony.
Huh?
Look, I know you're trying to argue with me and make your argument sound credible. But I'm hear to tell you that police documents are privilege reports also.
I had a lawyer who wanted to sue me because I reported on something a part of privileged information - a lawyer.
I told him over the phone, "You won't win."
He fumed and fussed, but he knew I was right.
The reporter is under no legal obligation to ascertain the veracity of a published report, especially if that report comes from an official governmental source. Now whether the reporter has a responsibility to be fair is another matter. But you are simply
WRONG on this issue.
If that report came from the police and is a part of their overall dossier (spelling) about the incident, it can be reported as privileged information.
But to get to that point though, you are assuming it was an official government document. Which, again, it is not. Only the final published police report is a government document. But even then, the qualified immunity only attaches to the extent you accurately report what the government document said.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. It is an official government document. Note that even the PR guy for the police didn't reject the fact that the report was official. He just said he didn't know how it got out to the media.
Second, ask someone whether that document can be destroyed. I guarantee you he/she will say no. Why? Because government officials cannot destroy official government documents, especially those relate to incidents and related to criminal investigations.
You are right. I'm not a journalist. I am a lawyer. And since we are talking about the law right now, what is the best for journalistic ratings is irrelevant.
So are you a communications lawyer? What branch of law are you in? I would dare say that if you are a lawyer who is involved in communications you should know this.
As for journalistic ratings being irrelevant, that's beside the point. I'm merely stating that the media is what it is. It's not what you want it to be. The media has to respond to news. It has to report news. TO possibly attempting to commit suicide is news. That information doesn't get published if there is not a government document which states he tried to do that.
I guarantee you that that document will not be destroyed and will be filed in an overall report.
You are wrong. It's not called privileged information. Rather, the press has qualified immunity to report what was said in a public trial, what the government says and what police reports say. If you are interested in actual cases, read Florida Star v. B.J.F. and Smith v. Daily Mail cases. The immunity attaches to the extent you accurately report the information of official governmental records or court proceedings.
Actually, I'm right. It is privileged information (information of a private nature and embarrassing nature that can be reported on because it is part of an official government proceeding.
Granted, I've been out of J-school for twenty plus years, but it's still privilege information. However, the broader term is "qualified privilege."
(From Wikipedia)
There are two types of privilege:
"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it was made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defence in circumstances where it is considered important the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents and information relating to public bodies, such as the police and fire. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, though it is subject to more complicated conditions.
Again, the thing at issue is not the police record. The Dallas Police Department said as such, but you nonetheless proceed to argue that it is. Such an argument is sheer asininity.
LOL! Why do you think the Dallas Police Department says that it's not the "official" police document but then argues as if it is?
It does so because it knows that the document
IS an official police report. It is not the "final" police report, but it is an official police document.
The police department knows that. It's just trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
"Attempted suicide was reported" despite the fact that even the unofficial narrative never said that the assailant attempted suicide?
The narrative said that TO was trying to "harm" himself. I agree that the reporter probably jumped to a conclusion, but what other possible conclusion could you draw from a report that indicates TO's publicist says he was "depressed" and when asked if TO was trying to harm himself he responds "yes"?
The inaccuracy of the report waives the qualified immunity and subjects the agency to suit.
No, no, no.
Any lawsuit would have to PROVE that the police somehow lied during the collection of their information. Good luck.
Second, I found it interesting that you suggested the agency be sued and not the media?
Could it be that the media, indeed, got its information from an official source? If the source were not official, then the media could be sued. But I doubt you see a lawsuit coming from this episode.
I guarantee you this: despite what you learned in your journalism class, if T.O. is so inclined and the facts do in fact indicate that this was an inaccurate unofficial report, he will have a lawsuit against the original reporter of the leaked information. The qualified immunity will not protect materially false reporting not found in an unofficial document even if provided by someone in the police department.
Well, anyone can sue over anything. So that guarantee does mean much.
But I guarantee you that TO won't win if he sued the media
UNLESS it can be proven that the reporter obtained the information illegally or if the reporter fabricated the report.
When reporters receive documents, editors aren't stupid enough to just run with that document especially in light of media fabrications that have damaged the industry. They have their own check and balances, as does my newspaper.
Besides, with respect to celebrities, they not only have the burden to prove that the information was false (exactly how do you prove that TO wasn't trying to kill himself), they also have to prove
MALICE, i.e., that the newspaper recklessly reported information it knew to be false and didn't take the steps to verify such information.
Good luck.
