Opinion ID: 2622669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Actual Malice Standard to the Third Broadcast

Text: ¶121 The centerpiece of Dr. Jensen's claim of actual malice is Ms. Sawyers' statement that he promised her illegal drugs. There is no doubt that Dr. Jensen offered to work with her in illegally prescribing Dexedrine to her, but this, as we have stated earlier, may not constitute a promise. Defendants concede the literal inaccuracy of the word promise. This misstatement connotes a more unequivocal willingness by Dr. Jensen to flout the law governing prescription medicine. It does not, however, leave us with the clear and convincing impression that the accusatory distinction between promise and work with is sufficient to establish actual malice. It surely falls short of indicating personal malice rising to the level of hatred or ill-will on the part of defendants against Dr. Jensen. ¶122 Our independent review of the testimony by Ms. Sawyers and station manager John Edwards persuades us that there is insufficient evidence from which we could conclude they did not hold an honest belief that Dr. Jensen had offered or promised her Dexedrine, which is illegal for use in weight loss. The interaction between Ms. Sawyers and Dr. Jensen does square with the Black's Law Dictionary definition of promiseThe manifestation of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner that another is justified in understanding that a commitment has been made . . . . Black's Law Dictionary 1229 (7th ed. 1999). It is clear that Dr. Jensen manifested an intent or willingness to act in a specific mannerto prescribe Dexedrinealthough it was not legal for weight loss purposes. Ms. Sawyers testified that she believed the content of the third broadcast accurate or truthful because Dr. Jensen had twice offered her Dexedrine and she had confirmed with DOPL that prescribing it was illegal. Mr. Edwards testified similarly. Thus even her most egregious misstatement does not rise to the level of actual malice. ¶123 We do find the general tenor of the third broadcast troubling. By aggregating within a broadcast the alleged misdeeds of several physicians, the third broadcast had the presumably intended effect of shifting focus from the misconduct and disciplinary fate of individual physicians to a more sensational suggestion that Utah was home to a band of rogue doctors imperiling the health of its citizens. This inference of a potentially malicious motive for the third broadcast enjoys, however, no greater claim to credibility than does Ms. Sawyers' explanation that the purpose of the third broadcast was not to compare physicians and their offenses, but to educate the viewers on how to research physicians who might be under investigation. ¶124 The third broadcast focused on Utah physicians either in the Questionable Doctors book or, as in the case of Dr. Jensen, a physician whose conduct fell under the rubric of questionable. Her focus in the third broadcast was to let the public know about how they could find out about pending actions or actions that had already been taken against physicians in this state. Ms. Sawyers acknowledged that she did not believe that Dr. Jensen's conduct was as bad as the other physician she identified in the story, nor was he, at that time in Questionable Doctors. She explained that her reason for including him in the broadcast was that [Dr. Jensen] was an example of a doctor who had been investigated by the Division of Professional Licensing. Investigations by DOPL into physician conduct form the basis and content for editions of the book Questionable Doctors. Ms. Sawyers added that even if she had learned of the resolution of the DOPL charges against Dr. Jensen, she still would have said he is the one we caught on camera offering me illegal drugs because she believed this to be true. She also testified that the process of editing and preparing the third broadcast was a time-intensive and highly evaluative process which, she insists supports her position that the content of the broadcast and her conduct were not, nor would have been, made with knowledge that the broadcast was untruthful. ¶125 While clearly an aberration from fair and balanced journalism, the content of third broadcast leaves us unconvinced that it was the product of actual malice. We therefore vacate the award of punitive damages on the third broadcast.