Regan v. NewsCorp: Is It Libel?

Posted Tuesday December 19, 2006 at 09:07 AM

The votes are in, and it's libel and breach of contract. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has now released the alleged anti-Semitic comments made by Judith Regan during the conference call that resulted in her firing. The Wall Street Journal reports that Regan said, "Of all people, Jews should know about ganging up, finding common enemies, and telling the big lie," and then went on to call literary agent Esther Newberg and HarperCollins employees David Hirshey, Jane Friedman, and Mark Jackson "a Jewish cabal. All of you people are conspiring against me."

Rude and inappropriate? Absolutely. Anti-Semitic? Debatable. Meanwhile Regan's attorney, Bert Fields, is claiming breach of contract (which he discussed at length in today's LA Times) and libel, a form of defamation of character that involves the publication of false statements about an individual leading to injury of the individual's reputation or character (the likelihood of which is discussed further here). To successfully assert a libel claim, a plaintiff must usually (depending on state laws) prove that the publication was intentional - not a problem in this case, now that HarperCollins and News Corp. employees are spouting Regan's alleged comments to willing reporters. Proof of the truth of the statements is a complete defense in a civil action for libel, meaning that if they can prove she said it, she has no case. Only factual misrepresentations are considered libel, not expressions of opinion.

As such, a libel claim presents an interesting issue. Before releasing her remarks, HarperCollins reps stated that the comments were "anti-Semitic." This is an expression of opinion, not an objective fact - whether or not the quotes they cited cross the line from inappropriate workplace behavior to actual anti-Semitism is subject to interpretation based on other factors (like, oh, say, whether or not the speaker herself is Jewish). Fields disputes the quotes cited by News Corp. spokesman Andrew Butcher, and asserts that Regan in fact said the following: "What she said was that she was being destroyed in the press for something that wasn't her fault, and that the Jewish people should understand more than anybody else what it is to be the victim of a big lie." A libel suit may come down to who can prove whether a few key words were said, and how they were interpreted.

— Melissa Lafsky

Who Really Fired Censorship Victim Judith Regan?

While Julie Bosman and Richard Siklos are reporting in the New York Times that "Rupert Murdoch personally ordered the dismissal of Judith Regan," Jeffrey Trachtenberg claims in his Wall Street Journal article that it was actually HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman who made the decision, and Murdoch was merely "informed of the firing." After I contacted him by email, Trachtenberg insisted his version is correct, but he refused to identify his source or explain why he is so confident.

Accuracy and anonymous sourcing are just two of the many journalistic and moral issues that have been triggered by the most recent controversy surrounding superstar-turned-pariah O.J. Simpson, who is the subject of a cancelled book and television special which had been scheduled for release by HarperCollins and Fox Broadcasting respectively. In a previous post, I argued that censorship is an aspect of the story that deserves more attention than it has received. To their great discredit, media professionals who earn substantial salaries selling sleazy infotainment, and who generally claim to favor open debate, called successfully for the censorship of If I Did It, the book in which Simpson reportedly muses about how me might have twice committed murder, although we don't know if the book really contains such ruminations, because we have been prevented from reading it by a subculture of self-appointed decency czars. >>>cont