Opinion ID: 1291531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reckless Disregard of the Truth

Text: The central issue of this case is whether any evidence exists tending to prove that Kent recklessly disregarded the truth when he published the article Let the Liar Run. If such evidence exists, the question of actual malice is a question of fact for a jury. We find that the record includes sufficient circumstantial evidence that Kent recklessly disregarded the truth when he published the article to place the question of actual malice before the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that failure to investigate, alone, is insufficient to support a finding that a defendant recklessly disregarded the falsity of a published article. See New York Times, 376 U.S. at 286-288, 84 S.Ct. 710 (holding that the actual malice standard cannot be met simply by using an objective standard to find failure to investigate). South Carolina has also declined to impose rigid investigatory duties on members of the press. This Court has held that to establish recklessness, there must be an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by reasonable publishers. Peeler, 324 S.C. at 266, 478 S.E.2d at 285. Further, this Court held that the reckless conduct contemplated by the New York Times standard is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have ... investigated before publishing. George, 345 S.C. at 456, 548 S.E.2d at 876 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff will rarely find success in proving awareness that a statement is false from the mouth of a defendant himself. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171-72, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). Therefore, any direct or indirect evidence relevant to the defendant's state of mind is admissible to prove actual malice. A plaintiff may present competent circumstantial evidence of bad faith to establish actual malice despite a defendant's contention that the publication was made with a belief the statements were true. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). Furthermore, a subjective awareness of probable falsity can be shown if there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989). The record in this case is replete with circumstantial evidence of bad faith on the part of Kent. The record also contains reasons to doubt the accuracy of Bray's recount of the interview with Anderson. First, Anderson testified he told John Boyette he had been in North Carolina working for various insurance companies, including National Flood. Boyette's September 18 article confirms both Anderson's denial and his contention that he had spent two months working in North Carolina for National Flood. Anderson contacted The Chronicle to dispute Boyette's article and was led to believe the misunderstanding would be corrected. Second, on September 26 Anderson received a call from Pat Willis, an employee of The Chronicle. Anderson testified Willis specifically requested proof that he was a federally-approved insurance adjuster and that he had worked in North Carolina. Anderson faxed to Willis, among other things, a letter from the supervisor of National Flood's claims field operations and a resume he prepared and used during his campaign for House Seat 84. The information contained in Anderson's resume directly contradicted Bray's initial reports in The Chronicle. As recited by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, the resume noted Anderson had been 1) commended for supervising flood restoration projects in four states; 2) responsible for approximately 200 contractors, workmen and damage assessors in efforts to house 4500 flood inundated families; 3) a program chief in Johnstown, Pennsylvania following a destructive flood; 4) a contract coordinator in Los Angeles after mudslides in 1979; 5) a work supervisor following flooding in Winslow, Arizona; and 6) an appraiser of property damage for various insurance companies and government agencies following hurricanes Andrew, Hugo, Alicia, Freddie, Camille, [and] Betsy.... Of particular interest is the fact that Anderson's resume specifically referred to his military service in the Korean War, but made no mention of the National Guard. Military records are public and easily verifiable. A jury could have concluded The Chronicle should have realized Anderson's purported statement was highly questionable, particularly in light of his advanced age. [6] These facts, known to The Chronicle before publication of Let the liar run, could lead a reasonable jury to infer The Chronicle had obvious reasons to doubt Bray's recollection of his conversation with Anderson. Finally, Anderson entered into evidence an editorial published in the Aiken Standard on September 21, 1997. Senior Writer Carl Langley wrote: A year ago, and shortly before the November elections, Anderson, a semi-retired insurance claims adjuster, was asked by a group of independent insurance companies to help process claims from hurricane damage in North Carolina. A large number of the claims were made under the National Flood Insurance Program, which Anderson referred to in his conversations with me and which he told me he gave to another reporter. (He not only furnished that information last year, but again this past June after I asked him why he did not campaign before the 1996 election). (emphasis added). Anderson also introduced into evidence a clip from the Aiken Standard published on September 27, 1996 headlined Candidate leaves area to help Fran victims. The article stated that Anderson had to break off his campaign to help process insurance claims resulting from Hurricane Fran's destruction in North Carolina. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that Anderson had in fact said he was working with National Flood, not that he was serving in the National Guard. Accordingly, we hold that circumstantial evidence exists as to whether Kent recklessly disregarded the truth, and therefore acted with actual malice, when he published the article Let the Liar Run.