Opinion ID: 2204530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reckless disregard of truth or falsity.

Text: Not only did Ebersole have actual knowledge of falsity, as above set forth, but in many instances, the jury might well have found that he manifested a reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of defamatory and damaging material. As already observed, Ebersole knew that the name of the veteran in the hospital at Bethesda was Dennis Reeder and not James Reeder. He had previously conferred with Elmer Reeder, the father and the tenant in the Harnish property. He had been in prior communication by telephone with Dr. Harnish. He received a xerox copy of the thirty-day notice to quit the premises from Nye. Under these circumstances, the jury could have concluded that the reporter entertained serious doubts of its truth or falsity and there was a reckless disregard of truth or falsity to equate the giving of the thirty-day notice to the wounded Marine without so much as a communication of any kind with Dr. Harnish or with Elmer Reeder prior to publication to ascertain whether or not this damaging statement were true or false. Even a limited knowledge would suggest that it was incredible that a thirty-day notice to quit a property would be given to an absent son of a tenant, rather than to the tenant himself, and at an address where it was known that the son was not present. The news was not hot news and Ebersole had ample time to check the truth or falsity with Dr. Harnish or Elmer Reeder, the tenant. Then, too, the thirty-day notice showed on its face that the Reeder family was not evicted as the glaring headline indicated. Indeed, as above indicated, the Reeder family remained in the Harnish property until the City of Hagerstown was ready to begin its demolition in order to widen Locust Street some months later, which Ebersole admitted he knew. It should be remembered also that Ebersole admitted in his testimony that he had learned at a Rotary Club meeting in February, 1967, at which the Mayor of Hagerstown had spoken, that the City of Hagerstown intended to widen Locust Street in the 600 block and tear down those properties. Ebersole then knew that whatever violations of the building code existed in the 600 block Locust Street houses, the situation was likely to be a temporary one in the light of the contemplated demolition of the houses by the City. This presented a most unlikely area for the Ebersole-Nye crusade against Dr. Harnish, even assuming that Ebersole had an interest in proper housing generally in Hagerstown. The extraordinary activities of Nye, his visits to the veterans organizations in regard to the Harnish property, the great playing up of a really nonexistent veteran's problem, the singling out of the Harnish property  admittedly in better condition than many of the other houses in the 600 block of Locust Street  could lead a jury to conclude that Ebersole had indeed engaged in an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers. Curtis Publishing Co., supra, 388 U.S. at 158, 87 S.Ct. at 1991, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1111. The defendants below called Joseph M. Harp, Associate Editor of The Morning Herald and The Daily Mail as their witness. In reply to a question by the court, Mr. Harp stated that: I haven't given Mr. Philip Ebersole any specific instructions. He is a veteran reporter and certainly knows he is to report only facts. On cross-examination, Mr. Harp testified that, although he was a member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and of the Annual Yearbook Committee, he was not familiar with the Code of Ethics of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr. Harp admitted on cross-examination that he had seen a book edited and published in pamphlet form by the American Newspaper Publishers Foundation, entitled A. Hanson, Libel and Related Torts (1969). At Section 299, page 245, the following appears: D. CONCLUSION. The persistent use of formalized procedures and policies designed to promote accuracy is the best evidence the media can produce to show that publication was not in reckless disregard of the truth. Such procedures counteract any evidence of possible suspicions that the material was inaccurate. In the New York Times case for instance, it was shown that the persons handling the faulty advertisement saw nothing on its face which made it unacceptable under the `Advertising Acceptability Standards' which the Times set forth in booklet form. The absence of such systematic procedures renders the media vulnerable to a jury determination that a `high degree of awareness of probable falsity' existed, and in addition intensifies the risks of the even stricter liability which attaches to misstatements about persons who are not public men. The jury could have concluded that, notwithstanding this recommendation for the establishment of formalized, systematic procedures and policies by the newspaper to promote accuracy, Ebersole had no specific instructions and was, in effect, left on his own so far as the preparation of news articles was concerned with a consequent extreme departure from the standard of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers. There are rulings on evidence and other rulings by the trial court which appear to me to have been in error, but it would unduly prolong this dissenting opinion to consider them specifically. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. I am authorized to state that Judge Finan concurs in the views herein expressed.