Opinion ID: 662398
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Verifiability of Other Passages in The Times Review

Text: 48 The Times review gives several examples of what Eskenazi regarded as sloppy journalism in Interference, five of which Moldea challenges in this suit. We hold that four of the five challenged passages characterize Interference in ways that a jury could meaningfully determine are true or false. Each of these passages is offered as an illustrative fact supporting the reviewer's opinion that Moldea's work is sloppy. If a jury were to find that they are false and that Moldea had proved the other elements of his libel claim, then we hold that it could reasonably find that Moldea was libeled. Because we hold that two of the four verifiable statements cannot be deemed true as a matter of law, but rather must be evaluated by a jury, we remand this case for further proceedings. 7 49 First, we find that the review's assertion that Moldea portrays a meeting between [304 U.S.App.D.C. 416] Joe Namath and Lou Michaels as sinister is verifiable, and that a reasonable juror could conclude that it is false: 50 Mr. Moldea tells as well of Mr. Namath's 'guaranteeing' a victory in Super Bowl III shortly after a sinister meeting in a bar with a member of the opposition, Lou Michaels, the Baltimore Colts' place-kicker. The truth is that the pair almost came to blows after they both had been drinking; and Mr. Namath's well-publicized 'guarantee' came about quite innocently at a Miami Touchdown Club dinner when a fan asked him if he thought the Jets had a chance. 'We'll win. I guarantee it,' Mr. Namath replied. 51 In this passage Eskenazi attempts to support his suggestion that Moldea is an incompetent journalist by describing one of the book's alleged errors--i.e., by using a fact to substantiate his opinion. Moldea argues that his book plainly reveals that the Namath-Michaels meeting was innocent. 8 The clear implication of the review passage is that Moldea, either through incompetence or an intent to mislead, suggests that the meeting was sinister. This is an essentially factual claim--either Interference so describes the meeting or it does not. 52 In his brief and during oral argument, appellee's counsel attempted to demonstrate that the disputed passages in Moldea's book do in fact describe a sinister meeting. However, arguing that the characterizations offered in the review are correct is not the same as contending that they are nonverifiable--indeed, it is precisely the opposite. The arguments presented by both parties as to this statement's truth or falsity make it clear that one can adduce evidence on the issue and that a jury could meaningfully decide it. Any concerns we might otherwise have that the Times could be penalized simply because its reviewer's interpretation differs from that of a jury are allayed by the fact that in order to win at trial Moldea would be required to prove not only falsity, but also malice or fault, depending on whether he were found to be a public figure. 53 Given our holding that the review's characterization of Moldea's discussion is verifiable, we must next consider whether a reasonable juror could find it false. Although we express no opinion as to the truth of the review's assertion that Moldea indicates that the Namath-Michaels meeting was sinister, we cannot hold as a matter of law that it is true. On page 197 of Interference, Moldea states that Michaels told him that his meeting with Namath was quite accidental and even confrontational. On the same page Moldea quotes Michaels as saying What we talked about had no relationship to the game, and quotes another player present at the meeting as confirming that  'nothing technical' about the game was discussed. The only overt suggestion in the book that the meeting could even be construed as sinister is Moldea's statement that [t]hose who still insist that something about the game was suspicious call attention to it. Interference, at 197. Based on our reading of Interference, we cannot hold that the Times review's characterization of the book's depiction of the Namath-Michaels meeting could not reasonably be found to be false. 54 Second, although it is a closer question, we also hold that the review's assertion that Moldea revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom was murdered could be found to be false when read in the context of the book as a whole: 55 [Moldea] revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom, the ornery owner of the Rams, who had a penchant for gambling, met foul play when he drowned in Florida 10 years ago. 56 Moldea discusses Rosenbloom's drowning in pages 319 through 326 of Interference, closing his account with quoted observations from several of Rosenbloom's friends who speculate that he was murdered. However, later in his book, on page 360, Moldea states [304 U.S.App.D.C. 417] that he has located previously unknown photographs taken at Rosenbloom's autopsy which he presented for inspection to several friends within the law-enforcement community. Moldea then concludes that In short, the evidence appears to be clear that Rosenbloom died in a tragic accident and was not murdered. 57 It could be said that Interference does in fact suggest that Rosenbloom was murdered because the book mentions his friends' suspicions of foul play. At the same time, there can be no doubt that Moldea ultimately claims that he has conclusively disproved this theory. We cannot hold as a matter of law that a reasonable juror could not find that the Times review did in fact mischaracterize Interference 's portrayal of this incident. The law of this circuit requires that the review be taken as a whole, and in the sense in which it would be understood by the readers to whom it was addressed. Afro-American Publishing, 366 F.2d at 655. A jury could, taking into consideration the generally negative tone of the review as a whole, find that the implication intended by the revives the discredited notion passage was not simply that Moldea discusses a discredited notion, but that Moldea does not reveal what Eskenazi implies is the well known truth about Rosenbloom's death. Read in this fashion, the Times review implies that Moldea is a poor journalist indeed--one who accepts versions of events that he should know already have been disproved; or, worse still, intentionally purveys discredited notions in an effort to suggest scandal where there is none. 58 Third, the Times review's assertion that material in Interference is warmed over is also a verifiable statement offered in support of the review's overall verdict that Moldea is a sloppy journalist: 59 Too bad. For there is some really hot stuff in here, albeit warmed over. 60 The import of this passage is clear: Eskenazi implies that Moldea has, at some points in his book, rehashed material that has been aired before by other sources. Such a practice would, of course, reflect badly on an investigative journalist. Moldea contends that the accusation that his book contains warmed over material is false because Interference makes important new revelations. We conclude that the warmed over passage is verifiable; however, the text of Interference itself makes plain that this characterization is substantially true. The presence of some new material in Interference would not negate the review's implication that some portion of the book is old news. The Times review does not suggest that all of Interference is warmed over, but merely that some  of the book's revelations, though they initially seem hot, have in fact been revealed by previous journalistic efforts. 61 While we cannot establish with mathematical precision how much of Interference the Times would be required to prove is warmed over in order to verify this characterization, Moldea's book reveals that at least the portrayals the review specifically suggests are rehashed have in fact been presented before, and we hold that this is enough for the Times to avoid liability for this statement. Eskenazi wrote that Moldea offered still another recitation of the 1958 Colts-Giants playoff. Moldea's discussion of that game quotes from a book published in 1974 which suggests that Football Insiders suspect that the Colts went for a touchdown in order to beat the point spread, the very issue Interference addresses. See Interference at 90 n. 1. In addition, Eskenazi dismisses suspicions that Carroll Rosenbloom might have been murdered as discredited notions, implying that some source has previously discredited that theory. Moldea in fact writes at some length about a 1983 television special which suggested that Rosenbloom might have been murdered, see id. at 358, then goes on to discuss commentaries on this special which were published in the Chicago Tribune, Variety, Sports Illustrated, and the New York Times. See id. at 360-361. By Moldea's own admission, then, his account of the controversy surrounding Rosenbloom's drowning cannot be deemed a journalistic scoop, although, as noted above, Moldea does contend that he unearthed new information finally laying these rumors to rest. 62 Fourth, the review's statement that Moldea does not reveal in his text that the Baltimore Colts had one of the worst kickers [304 U.S.App.D.C. 418] in the league is a factual claim, but because it is true it cannot be defamatory: 63 [Moldea] also offers still another recitation of the 1958 playoff game between the Baltimore Colts, then owned by Rosenbloom, and the New York Giants. The Colts disdained a field-goal attempt in overtime, choosing instead to go for a touchdown after they got close to the goal line. Mr. Moldea's implication is that they wanted to win by more than three points to beat the point spread. 64 The Colts 'again refused to send in kicker Myhra to end the game' with a field goal, [Moldea] complains. What [Moldea] doesn't state in his text is that Steve Myhra was among the worst place-kickers in the league, having missed three extra points and more than half his field-goal attempts during the season. 65 No reasonable juror could disagree with the above assertion. It is true that Moldea quotes the Baltimore coach in the text of Interference as saying We did not have a great placekicker and denying that he had attempted to beat the point spread by going for a touchdown, Interference at 90, but Moldea does not state in his text that Steve Myhra was among the worst place-kickers in the league. Rather, it is only in a footnote to his discussion of the Colts-Giants game that Moldea states that Baltimore had the second-worst field goal percentage in the NFL. See Interference at 444 n. 1. 66 Finally, the review's criticism of Interference 's description of The Morning Telegraph as an inside information sheet is not verifiable because it merely offers Eskenazi's evaluation of that publication in contrast to Moldea's, and reveals the factual bases for its disagreement: 67 Mr. Moldea is obsessed, for example, with Joe Namath. [Moldea] says that, as a rookie, the New York Jets' quarterback roomed with 'Joe Hirsch, who wrote a betting line and an inside information sheet on professional sports.' 68 Heady revelations--except that the courtly Mr. Hirsch happened to be the racing columnist and chief reporter for The Morning Telegraph (now The Racing Form). He still is. He never picked horses, never wrote 'an inside information sheet.' He is, in essence, the writer for the world of horse racing. 69 The passage offers a competing description of The Morning Telegraph which adequately explains the basis for the reviewer's opinion that Moldea is sloppy for having characterized that publication as an inside information sheet. Although the opinion expressed in the passage might have a defamatory implication in the context of this article--that Moldea is an incompetent journalist--it is not actionable because it permits the reader to evaluate the facts upon which it is based. Moldea argues that the passage is false because Interference does reveal that Hirsch wrote for The Morning Telegraph and that the review erroneously suggests that he did not do so. While we agree that the review does not make clear that Moldea notes the exact publication for which Hirsch wrote, the real gist of the challenged passage is that Moldea inaccurately describes The Morning Telegraph, not that he fails to name it.