$25M in Libel Damages Based on Newspapers' Misidentification of Plaintiff as Broadcaster Who Used Racial Slurs

CBS News reports on Monday's verdict ($5M in actual damages and $20M in punitives), in Sapulpa v. Gannett Co.:

The incident occurred in 2021 before the Norman-Midwest City girls high school basketball game when an announcer for a livestream cursed and called one team by a racial epithet as the players kneeled during the national anthem.

The broadcasters told their listeners on the livestream that they would return after a break. Then one, apparently not realizing the audio was still live, said: "They're kneeling? (Expletive) them," one of the men said. "I hope Norman gets their ass kicked … (Expletive) (epithet)."

Sapulpa, one of two announcers, was initially identified by the newspaper as the person who made the racist comment…. Matt Rowan, the owner and operator of the streaming service, later told The Oklahoman he was the person who made the remarks….

According to The Root (Jay Connor), the epithets were "fucking niggers." Gannett, which owns the newspaper (The Oklahoman), responded:

There was no evidence presented to the jury that The Oklahoman acted with any awareness that what was reported was false or with any intention to harm the plaintiff in this case. Gannett intends to seek an appellate review of the case.

Note that it seems likely that the plaintiff wasn't a public figure, so the Oklahoman could be liable for compensatory damages even if it was merely negligent; but the punitive damages award would indeed require evidence that it knew the statement was false (or at least was likely false). For the Complaint, see here.

Comments

[Absaroka]

Gannett must be one of these Joe Keyboard-style internet utopians. If publishing were to be returned to the hands of the true newspapermen someone trained to be cautious about libel would have reviewed that defamatory story before it got published, find himself uncertain (at least) whether defamation was implicated, and killed the story to stay on the safe side.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's USA Today, etc...

[Bob from Ohio]

Lathrop and Kirkland bait!

[Dilan Esper]

This one is actually a decent argument for Prof. Volokh's use-mention dichotomy. You really can't understand what was said in the expurgated text- you have to know what the actual epithet and expletive is to even understand the case.

[Gasman]

Did they forget to include the talisman 'alleged' enough times in the text, or 'the party did not immediately respond for comment'.

The more times that those appear in reporting, the sloppier the reporting certainly will be.

[SimonP]

Details from the complaint, which Eugene has chosen not to share:

The words were actually said, by Rowan. The journalists who reported on the use of the epithets asked Rowan who said it, and Rowan denied doing so, and he in fact maintained that lie even as the story gained traction. That is why Sepulpa was reported to have said them. Rowan came out and admitted he was the one who uttered the epithets only later in day of publication, after which the news outlets posted a correction.

Rowan was also a co-defendant on this lawsuit.

This was a flash-in-the-pan scandal, reported and corrected within a single day, where the reporter was intentionally misled by the person who actually uttered the epithets on the air. The plaintiff is just fishing for a deep pocket.

Hopefully they lose on appeal. This is a ridiculous outcome.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"This guy who was accused of this horrible thing denies doing it. He seems credible - let's blame someone else!"

[santamonica811]

Technically (per the complaint), TWO different people [falsely] accused the plaintiff of making the racist comments, not just the actual racist asshole.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who was #2?

Anyway, what did the jury miss when it heard the evidence?

UPDATE: It looks like you may agree with the jury.

Please don't sue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All guns are loaded, all mikes are hot (active).

What idiot doesn't know that?!?

[santamonica811]

As the complaint makes clear; the plaintiff was, apparently, completely uninvolved with the business of broadcasting. As such, I find it entirely reasonable and predictable that he would have no idea when a mic is or is not on. (In fact, the complaint says that, when the racist comments were made, the plaintiff was asked if the mic was on, and he gave the equivalent of a shrug and a "I don't do this for a living. What are you asking me? I have no idea!")

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you asked someone that as you were being handed a gun, what would you do?

[santamonica811]

Before I had experience with a gun, I would have undoubtedly handled the gun gingerly AND (inadvertently) endangered everyone around me, by losing track and accidentally pointing the gun at people as I moved around. (I saw this repeatedly at gun ranges, as first-timer users were told not to point at anyone. And, 5 minutes later, as they swung around, pointed the gun at 1-5 people, for a split-second. Nothing bad ever happened in my very limited number of visits. But I’d totally expect that, sometimes, rarely, an inexperienced (or drunk, or incompetent) gun-holder would discharge that gun inadvertently, and some small percentage of those would be when the gun happened to be facing in exactly the wrong direction. Dick Chaney almost murdered (manslaughtered???) one of his good friends, and he was a guy who had handled a gun literally hundreds or thousands of times in his life. It can happen.)

On the other hand; after I had had my first lesson, I hope that I would never point the gun at another person accidentally, or done anything else that endangered others.

Which tracks with the plaintiff in this case, who was saying from the beginning, “I don’t do this for a living, I have no experience with this equipment, stop asking me questions about how this works . . . I’m the wrong guy to be asking.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dick Cheney was not really at fault. Driving game is illegal in Maine in part because it is so dangerous but the victim wasn't supposed to stand up and he knew that Cheney would shoot over him at the birds he flushed.

Like I said, this is illegal in Maine and I presume for a reason. Texas allows it and they decided to do it.

As to accidental discharges, I remember a police chief giving a gun safety lecture with a shotgun he didn't know was loaded and blasted the daylights out of a doorframe...

But hand me a gun and I'm going to make sure it is empty.

[Scooter]

Alec Baldwin?

[Dr. Ed 2]

...belongs in prison.

0f course I will never forgive him for his child molester scoutmaster routine on SNL with "canteen boy."

[santamonica811]

If I’m in upper management for a huge media company, I can’t imagine that (a) I don’t have in-house counsel, (b) I’ve hired pretty good lawyers, and (c) I will listen to their advice.

I simply don’t understand why, when defendants learned of the false accusation, and that the guy wanted a full and detailed public retraction, they didn’t immediately say, “Oh, crap. Of course! We’re happy to do that. We’re very sorry we were lied to and that this impacted you. We’re happy to un-ring the bell as much as is possible.” Instead, they tripled-down, and used the excuse that doing the full retraction was not necessary and might even lead to additional publicity of the matter. (The latter was, of course, entirely possible [see, Streisand Effect], but if the harmed party wanted that risk, it was his call–and not their call–to make.)

It was that decision that made me lose most of my sympathy for those defendants. (Even though I agree with the argument that, initially, they were permitted to go with the original story, after multiple sources confirmed [incorrectly & falsely] that the plaintiff was the bad guy.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gannett is not doing well -- it's had massive layoffs and significant exec turnover. https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2023/gannett-is-experiencing-a-mass-exodus-among-top-execs-heres-who-has-left/

You're assuming that there is someone at the helm...

[Absaroka]

Many years ago I recall an article where a hospital had reduced their malpractice claim losses by simply being more forthright. Previously if Dr. Jones had missed an ambiguous call, the hospital would go into full denial, clam up on any details, and generally stonewall the patient's relatives. Some of the times that worked and no claim was filed, but when it didn't the relatives were looking for retribution, and juries were willing to give it.

They replaced it with a policy of openness and apology: Dr. Jones would sit down, explain why he missed the diagnosis, apologize, and so on. My recollection (and disclaimer, it has been a number of years) was they found their overall damages dropped considerably.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the comment the professor intended to cultivate and you, davard, are the audience this blog strives to cultivate.

If any clingers have the courage or character to debate these points -- looking at you in particular, Volokh Conspirators -- let's rock.

Otherwise, carry on, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with using the adjective "nigger" to describe that schmuck of a purported judge when there are so many other (more deserved) adjectives is that it enables other schmucks like RAV to discredit our arguments.

We've got at least 50 Federal judges we need to impeach for general principal. This is one of them.

Don't weaken that argument with the word "nigger."

[Note from the moderator: I deleted the original comment from another user, to which this comment is responding, because it was off-topic -- unrelated to this case -- and consisted chiefly of vulgar insults; this may make this comment opaque, which is why I'm adding this note. -EV]

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The problem with using the adjective . . . to describe that schmuck of a purported judge when there are so many other (more deserved) adjectives is that it enables other schmucks like RAV to discredit our arguments.

Yeah, that's the problem with using vile racial slurs.

Carry on, bigoted clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long . . . and, with respect to clingers who habitually use vile racial slurs while attempting to operate on legitimate (rather than right-wing) campuses, you'll also be told where you can carry on.

Or, perhaps more accurate, where you can't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, in most cases, the use of that word is Constitutionally protected, as is my right to condemn its use -- the problem with that judge is the content of her character and not the color of her skin.

But you still haven't defined a "strong" university or "respectable" campi. I'm waiting...