Journalism in 140 Characters

The world of journalism has made its transition from the printing press to the Internet, but how could that affect the integrity of the work? It has become common for journalists to utilize social media as a personal as well as professional outlet, making them more accessible to readers and their criticisms, and forcing readers to see them no longer as bylines but as living people. But when thoughts can be published at the click of a mouse and without going through an editor, do the media industry's preexisting standards to avoid libel and defamation suits go out the window?


“What people don’t realize is that everything you do and say online is always going to be there. Once you put something online, it’s almost impossible to ever delete it,” said Bradley Shear, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who specializes in social media law and also runs the blog shearsocialmedia.com.


Here’s an easy way to truly understand the gravity of a Twitter lawsuit: when asked why you can’t just delete a tweet if someone is threatening to sue, Shear said that it can be seen as “destruction of evidence.” While the number of Twitter libel suits haven't risen exponentially, there were a number of cases in 2011 which served to remind journalists and bloggers that their public stream of consciousness is still subject to legal standards.  


In the spring of 2011, a veteran NBA referee sued the Associated Press and one of its sports writers for $75,000 in damages and a court order to remove a tweet that suggested the referee intentionally made a bad call.

A few months later, a Portland blogger was sued by a medical spa doctor for defamation. The $1 million lawsuit, which was dismissed in October, was believed to be Oregon’s first Twitter libel suit and could have been the nation’s first to go to trial, according to The Oregonian.

Singer and actress Courtney Love suffered back-to-back defamation suits costing her $430,000. In 2009, Love tweeted a torrent of insults about a fashion designer who said that Love owed her money for some clothes. Her roughly 40,000 followers read how Dawn Simorangkir allegedly stole from the singer, lost custody of her child, had a criminal past and was a drug-pushing prostitute. Simorangkir sued Love for defamation and said the tweets damaged her reputation and destroyed her career. Love settled with the designer and paid her $430,000. Had it gone to trial as it was scheduled in 2011, it would have been the first to test if social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, can be held to the same libel standards as traditional news media.

In May 2011, Love was sued again for defamation when she tweeted that a San Diego attorney who represented her in a lawsuit involving the estate of her late husband, Kurt Cobain, was “bought off.” In September, California Superior Court Judge Ramona See limited the defamation suit against Love, but allowed the main claim— that attorney Rhonda Holmes may have been libeled and that a tweet can be a statement of fact, and not just an opinion — to move forward.

In general, the courts consider six different legal elements in libel cases: the defamatory nature of the communication, how it was published, the truth or falsity of the claims, whether it is “of and concerning an individual,” reputational harm caused and the degree of fault. But what’s interesting about Twitter is that while a newspaper might not be able to give exact numbers as to how many people read an alleged libelous statement, Twitter lists the number of followers on someone’s page — meaning at least that many people would receive the tweets in question, although it’s not possible to know how many actually read them. When assessing potential damages to someone’s reputation, lawyers can also look at the number of times a particular statement is “retweeted” — similar to forwarding an email. 

The Chicago Sun-Times encourages reporters to use Twitter. Jack Barry, the assistant managing editor for interactive media, says the newspaper realizes the potential dangers, but chose to encourage its use when they saw the reporters' enhanced ability to transmit news immediately and directly to thousands of readers. The newspaper started a social media training program and began rehashing its social media policy — not just for reporters, but for all newspaper employees including marketing and circulation.

“It’s just as easy to libel someone on Twitter as it would be on print,” Barry said. “Any of us in the media needs to be conscious of the fact that anything you do online — Twitter, Facebook, your personal blog — will reflect back on you, your personal brand and your news organization... You need to keep in mind the same sort of ethical and legal requirements that you would if you were going to write a story for the newspaper. This is a different medium. But it doesn’t mean you stop being a journalist because of it.”