In Minnesota, a Big Libel Judgement Against a Small Paper

By: Lots of newspapers lose lawsuits. But the $625,000 jury verdict against a small suburban newspaper has gotten the attention of media-watchers.

The Chanhassen Villager was hauled into court over an editorial about an elected official -- the sort of thing where newspapers usually have wide latitude.

"This would probably bankrupt two-thirds of the newspapers in the state of Minnesota," said Mark Anfinson, attorney for the chain of small papers to which the Villager belongs, and for many other smaller papers. Attorneys for the Villager aren't claiming that the Villager itself is in jeopardy.

Media attorney Paul Hannah, who represented the Villager at the trial, said the jury award is much higher than other recent comparable cases, and shows the danger of juries picking numbers out of the air.

"They asked the judge if there were any guidelines," he said, "and the answer is: No, there are not."

Julianne Ortman, a Republican state senator from Chanhassen who represented the plaintiff, said the press does a great service -- but this case shows there are limits.

"This doesn't open any floodgates," she said. "It is almost impossible to find the kind of proof we found of malice on an editor's part. This is not happening all over Minnesota."

Plaintiff Tom Workman, a former legislator who now serves on the Carver County board, said this is the first time he has sued. He said the case is not about the right of the press to criticize government officials, but about the price those officials must pay to run for office.

The lawsuit came after the Villager suggested in an editorial that Workman might have plotted to get Carver County's veteran administrator fired because of a grudge. The grudge supposedly arose out of a lawsuit against him in which the county had prevailed.

But the editorial contained factual errors, and jurors found that the former editor of the paper acted with "deliberate disregard" when they awarded Workman his damages. Ortman said a letter to the editor published on the same page as the editorial contained an accurate version of what the Villager got wrong.

The outcome is "very surprising" given the protection that courts extend to newspapers editorializing about public officials, said David Heller, a staff attorney at the Media Law Resource Center in New York, which tracks such cases nationally.

"The burden you have to meet is very high," he said. "Either the journalist has to have made up blatant lies or the truth was almost staring him in the face and he just wouldn't pay heed. It's more than even extreme sloppiness."

Eric Robinson, a staff attorney for the Resource Center, said that since 1980 nearly half of all such awards have been stripped back. He said the median final outcome for public officials and public figures is $87,500, versus initial awards of $380,000.

Marilyn Hamm, a great-grandmother who produces the 10,000-circulation Blaine Banner at home, said the verdict gives her no reason to change.

"I always make sure what I've got is correct," she said.

She recalled an instance years ago when she saw a city official ask council members for $10,000 on top of his normal salary. She called a former editor of one of the metro dailies for advice, and was told, "If you don't tell, who will?"

CORRECTION, Jan. 7: This story originally stated that attorney Julianne Ortman represented the Villager. In fact, she represented the Tom Workman, who sued the Villager.