Opinion ID: 1355753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Commercial aspects of news media

Text: The bedrock of the news media's argument for increased protection is that the costs of defamation actions, either in terms of judgments or litigation costs, stifle their ability to present the news. Perhaps the media are correct, but as we have explained, they have not submitted any evidence to support this argument. That point aside, the argument is not logically persuasive when the injured plaintiff is a private person. Under defendants' theory, one could argue that a publisher or broadcaster could better cover a breaking news story if its reporter could drive 100 miles per hour to get to the location of the story. No right thinking person, however, would argue that a pedestrian run over and seriously injured by the reporter should have to show malice to recover. (35) `The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others.' ( Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, 408 U.S. 665, 683 [33 L.Ed.2d 626, 640], quoting Associated Press v. Labor Board (1937) 301 U.S. 103, 132-133 [81 L.Ed. 953, 961, 57 S.Ct. 650]; Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 1463, 1492 [232 Cal. Rptr. 668, 69 A.L.R.4th 1027].) The injuries suffered from defamation can be more real and debilitating  at least emotionally and financially  than palpable physical injuries and are equally worthy of compensation. The vast majority of news media entities operate for profit. This is a less important policy consideration than those we have discussed above but does merit note. With rare exception, it is fanciful to view the news media as a group of lonely leafleteers. Vast communication combines have been built into profitable ventures. ( Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, supra, 403 U.S. at p. 60 [29 L.Ed.2d at p. 321] (conc. opn. of White, J.).) It has recently been reported that twenty-nine corporations control most of the business in daily newspapers, magazines, television, books, and motion pictures and predicted that by the 1990s a half-dozen large corporations will own all the most powerful media outlets in the United States. (Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, supra, p. 4.) Indeed, the news media amici curiae who have appeared in this action are entities of enormous financial resources. [41] When they negligently defame a private person, it is not unfair for them to pay for the injury. Newspapers, magazines, and broadcasting companies are businesses conducted for profit and often make very large ones. Like other enterprises that inflict damage in the course of performing a service highly useful to the public, such as providers of food or shelter or manufacturers of drugs designed to ease or prolong life, they must pay the freight.... ( Buckley v. New York Post Corporation (2d Cir.1967) 373 F.2d 175, 182 [20 A.L.R.3d 942].) We recognize that not every member of the media possesses the great wealth of those who have the most power and widest audiences. We think it will be the unusual plaintiff, however, who seeks to obtain an excessive verdict from a penurious defendant. Simple economics, including the cost of legal representation, mitigate against such a course of action. (McDonald, Should Punitive Damage Awards in Defamation Suits Be Abolished?, supra, National L.J. (Nov. 19, 1984) p. 22 [noting little evidence of suits against small publishers].)