Football Coach Wins Defamation Case Against Gannett

[Readallover]

Record-Breaking Defamation Verdict: Jury Awards Scott Sapulpa $25 Million in Landmark Defamation Case Against the Oklahoman, Owned by Gannett

 

[Readallover]

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/new...ion-in-damages-gannett-to-appeal/72484954007/

 

[DanOregon]

They corrected it within two and a half hours after posting and still got hammered? Not crying for Gannett, but that IS pretty harsh. Bad reporting of course. Reckless. But again - two and half hours. Does it have a chance to cause that much damage in that time span? Given the news orgs reach?

 

[wicked]

I mean, it was a pretty heinous comment.

Wondering how the newsroom handled the decision to go with the initial name. Did some clerk just look online and see who were listed as the announcers? Did someone hear the voice and decided it sounded like this guy? There's a lot of places here where the worm could've turned.

Cases like this should chill the be-first-not-correct crowd, but they won't.

 

[Hermes]

The notion of reporting that with that much authority that quickly without attribution gave me a stomach ache and a headache just from reading about it originally.

There would've been so many qualifiers and writing around attribution if I was that reporter that it would've been unreadable. Some might call that cowardly, but it wouldn't have cost $25 million.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Well, there's a few more newspapers without any sports staff.

And anyway, what ever happened to proof of malicious intent?

 

[justgladtobehere]

https://jeffpearlman.com/2021/03/12/who-will-scott-sapulpa-sue-first/

It seems like there was some harassment. He deleted his social media accounts and his phone number was put online.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Well, there's a few more newspapers without any sports staff.

And anyway, what ever happened to proof of malicious intent?

There is no need to prove malicious intent.

 

[jr/shotglass]

I'm sorry, I had thought Sapulpa was an active coach at the time, when he was an announcer. Had he been a coach, I would have contended that as a public figure, malicious intent needed to be proven.

 

[tapintoamerica]

They corrected it within two and a half hours after posting and still got hammered? Not crying for Gannett, but that IS pretty harsh. Bad reporting of course. Reckless. But again - two and half hours. Does it have a chance to cause that much damage in that time span? Given the news orgs reach?

I'm not sure how they did their calculations here, but they did have an expert witness who estimated $21 million as the cost to undo the damage of page views referring to the false claim:

Eric W. Rose, a Los Angeles crisis and reputation management expert, testified for Sapulpa that it would take a minimum of $860,000 to hire a digital public relations firm to buy advertising and distribute enough positive internet content about Sapulpa to suppress his name from showing up on Google searches related to Sapulpa being labeled a racist. The incorrect story has over 190,000 page views, and 70,000 readers clicked on The Oklahoman's story alone. Rose testified that research showed that Sapulpa would have to overcome 813 online-related stories with a publicity value of over $21 million.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The paper didn't even get comment from the guy before publishing? Especially something that serious? Yeesh.

 

[Spartan Squad]

Well, there's a few more newspapers without any sports staff.

And anyway, what ever happened to proof of malicious intent?

Malicious intent only applies to public figures and to a point with semi-public figures

EDIT: Just seeing your follow up point. He must have proved he was a private citizen or at least that there was enough "you messed up royally even if unintentionally to cause significant harm."