Opinion ID: 1385107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Falsity

Text: [2] A defendant in a defamation action may obtain summary judgment by showing that the story's sting is true. Mark, at 494. The sting is the gist of the story as a whole, and is only altered when significantly greater opprobrium attaches to the false statement than it would to the truth. See Mark, at 496. Inaccurate reporting is not defamatory unless by altering the sting it creates a materially different impression on the reader. The trial court characterized the sting of the 5:30 p.m. newscast as: (1) a prosecuting attorney was under investigation concerning bail bond practices; (2) he had a close friend who was arrested with two local bondsmen; and (3) he had accepted substantial sums from a bondsman to finance election campaigns. Since the trial court determined that all three of these items were true, it determined that the false statements about bondsmen contributing approximately half of Herron's election funds, with one contributing again in 1978, did not make any appreciable difference in the impact, or sting, of the broadcast. Herron assigns error to the trial court's characterization, contending that the true sting was to implicate Herron in a criminal conspiracy, giving an overall impression that he bargained away his ethics and integrity in exchange for campaign contributions. We agree. In that context, the statement that approximately half of Herron's campaign contributions came from bail bondsmen carries significantly greater opprobrium than the more accurate figure: approximately 2 percent. The false statement thus affected the sting of the story itself. Herron has made a sufficient prima facie showing of material falsity to preclude summary judgment.