(Editor’s note: This editorial was distributed by the Newspaper Association of America.)
Recently, Donald Trump said, “I’m gonna open our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” The specific media outlets he mentioned were The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The first thing to understand is that under the landmark Supreme Court case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, it was determined news organizations could be found liable when they deliberately publish false information.
The specific standard is “actual malice.” So if Mr. Trump wants to address media organizations that “write purposely negative and horrible, false articles,” then the law is already established as his right to do just that.
But we all know Mr. Trump isn’t interested in legalities in this case. He is clearly trying to intimidate news organizations and bully them into providing more positive coverage of him and his candidacy for president.
He should pick a different target. Newspapers have dealt with more intimidating figures than Mr. Trump.
Newspapers, actually, have a long, long history of responsibly speaking truth in the face of great power. One could think of Watergate or the Oscar-nominated movie Spotlight (about the uncovering of abuse by priests) as some better-known examples.
Throughout history, those in power have complained about newspaper reporting when it didn’t meet their agenda and, far more often than not, the reporting had been found to be right on target.
The fact is our society relies upon the newspaper industry to be a consistent, challenging voice to the wealthy and powerful – and newspapers have a long history of carrying out that mandate with care and a deep sense of responsibility.
Newspapers have successfully stood up to sitting presidents, vast religious organizations, governors, mayors and immensely powerful corporations, among many others.
If Mr. Trump wants to try to bully news organizations into providing information he likes, then he will have to do a whole lot better than making weak, misguided promises about changes to a law that aren’t needed in the first place.
