Newsworthy accusations and the privilege of neutral reportage

In an effort to establish a workable standard of liability in libel suits, the judiciary may be well on its way to endorsing the tenets of objective reporting. As articulated by the Court of Appeals in Edwards v. National Audubon Society, the First Amendment protects the “accurate and disinterested” reporting of “newsworthy accusations”; in their role as impartial and uncritical reporters, journalists enjoy a privilege of neutral reportage. Unhappily, the courts’ support for such a privilege is likely to inhibit social inquiry and discourage journalists in their search for truth; for in practice, a privilege of neutral reportage encourages journalists to report facts truthfully without regard for the truth about the facts. Further, a privilege of neutral reportage reinforces prominence as a news value; consequently, it promotes an ideology which runs counter to the important democratic assumption that statements made by ordinary citizens are as valuable as statements made by the prominent and the elite. In the end, a privilege of neutral reportage not only widens the gap between public and private persons but appears to be inimical to a conscientious and responsible press.