Opinion ID: 712057
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The report of McFarlane's refusal to comment

Text: 57 In the last stages of editing, Esquire changed the article's treatment of McFarlane's response to the charges. McFarlane ... denied the charges became McFarlane ... refused comment. Esquire's David Hirshey testified that they had been holding space for McFarlane's response, but were told by Unger that McFarlane had refused to agree to any kind of interview. Indeed, McFarlane wrote that he thought he would be of little help to Unger, essentially declining to be interviewed. 58 McFarlane notes that Unger's letter requesting help from McFarlane was phrased very blandly, saying that he was about to do an article on the October Surprise and asking for an interview. There was not a clue as to the depths of the charges (By the way, I plan to accuse you of being an Israeli spy.). And Mark Warren acknowledged having seen a copy of the letter to McFarlane, and the latter's reply, in the editing process. In a later telephone call, according to McFarlane's executive assistant, Unger mentioned October Surprise and Inslaw, but, again, not a word about espionage. Thus Warren and Esquire were on some notice of what had led to McFarlane's position. In retrospect, this looks at least very careless, but not enough to entangle Esquire in Unger's apparent misleading, which would be necessary for Esquire's behavior to help show actual malice on its part. [P]laintiff must prove more than an extreme departure from professional standards. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 2685, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989). 59