It requires that plaintiffs provide information to permit defendants to determine exactly what part of a communication may have been false and defamatory and why the plaintiff alleges it to be false. It offers plaintiffs injured by false publications a legitimate opportunity for restoration of their reputations, which is almost always their main objective, rather than the false hope of recovering damages under current law. It also encourages defendants in defamation cases to acknowledge their mistakes without running the risk of admitting liability. If a case does go to trial, the media retain all constitutional defenses. And despite reservations expressed by the Society of Professional Journalists, there is nothing in the statute that requires editors to back away from the truth or abandon reporters.
Most editors simply wouldn t do it.
Editors who would already can find plenty of excuses for folding under the pressure of a libel suit. The other substantive concern of SPJ is that the model statute would jeopardize the protection of confidential sources. This is a legitimate concern that can be resolved with a technical amendment, as North Dakota did, deleting in the case of a statement attributed to another person the three words identifies the person. SPJ and others also have expressed concern about the risk of more punitive laws if legislatures open discussion of the model statute. The uniform law has the strong support of ASNE, APME, NAA, the Uniform Law Commissioners and American Bar Association.