Meanwhile, CNN is waging a legal battle in Florida in part
to keep its internal news standards guide out of the public realm. That guide,
it says in court documents, contains “privileged, confidential and proprietary
information about CNN’s business practices.”
The tussle over the guide is part of a larger fight over a
CNN investigative piece that dates to June 2015, claiming that the mortality
rate for babies undergoing heart surgery at St. Mary’s Medical Center in West
Palm Beach, Fla., was three times the national average. The hospital’s
pediatric cardiac surgery program was terminated not long thereafter. Dr.
Michael Black, who led the program, sued CNN, four employees and a source in
2016. “By suggesting that Dr. Black treated ‘[b]abies as sacrificial lambs’ and
made ‘[a] total mess with newborn babies,’ and by claiming that Dr. Black’s
surgical mortality rate was over three times the national average, the CNN
Defendants have attributed to Dr. Black conduct unfit for a medical doctor or
surgeon as well as conduct rising to the level of criminality,” reads the
defamation complaint against CNN. A year ago, the judge in the case tossed out
CNN’s attempt to secure the complaint’s dismissal.
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in media-law cases commonly
seek out internal editorial guidance, the better to determine whether a piece
of journalism complies with the company’s own rules. In the Black v. CNN et al.
litigation, CNN claims that it has produced “all” parts of its guide that are relevant
to information requests from lawyers for Black. However, it redacted the other
parts on the rationale that they were, as stated above, “privileged,
confidential and proprietary.”
As for parts of the guide that CNN has surrendered: They’re
not a matter of public record at this point. According to a filing in the case,
CNN has designated them as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” meaning that not even the
plaintiff himself can view them. Those passages have been filed “provisionally
under seal,” according to the court file. If it’s “needed,” CNN has agreed to
present the whole, unredacted set of guidelines to special master Fred Hazouri,
who was appointed in the case to hear disputes over discovery.
Circuit Court Judge G. Joseph Curley, Jr., on March 15 ruled
against Black’s request for the unredacted version of the guide, noting that
the request didn’t encompass that material. The next day, Black’s lawyers asked
for all versions of the “CNN News Standards & Practices Policy Guide” that
have been issued since 2013. A subsequent filing by CNN claims that this
request was filed “[s]olely for the purposes of harassment.”
In an argument before the court, Thomas Clare*, an attorney
for Black, said, “This goes to the heart of the case. If they do not follow
their own standards and practices in preparing this statistical analysis, or
other aspects of the story, or their treatment of confidential sources, or
working with outsiders like Miss Robinson who held herself out as working with
CNN even though she’s not, those sorts of things violate CNN’s practices.”
(Robinson, a Florida resident, is named as a defendant in Black’s original
complaint, which alleges that she assisted with CNN’s newsgathering activities
and otherwise defamed the doctor).
That’s a lot of lawyering to protect documents that other
news organizations put online for all to view. To buttress its argument on the
guide, CNN has cited precedent: “Florida courts have been clear that discovery
is ‘in no sense designed to afford a litigant an avenue to pry into his
adversary’s business or go on a fishing expedition to uncover business methods,
confidential relations, or other facts pertaining to the business,'” reads a
portion of its argument on the matter.
Asked about the hubbub over the guide, a CNN spokesperson
emailed the Erik Wemple Blog, “We have already produced the relevant portions
under an agreed-to protective order. They want to see other parts we don’t
think are relevant. The court will decide.”
Elizabeth Locke, another attorney representing Black, issued
this statement: “It is disappointing that CNN, who prides itself on pushing
others for openness and transparency—just like it did in its reporting on St.
Mary’s Hospital and Dr. Black’s mortality rate—refuses to apply that same
standard for openness and transparency to itself. CNN has repeatedly fought for
public access to litigation discovery documents, including in cases related to
its reporting on Dr. Black, yet here it is vigorously fighting to hide its own
conduct by redacting documents and by putting them behind a protective order.
Why don’t the rules that CNN applies to others apply equally to itself?”
Indeed: CNN successfully petitioned for intervention in a
2014 medical malpractice case against Black and opposed his attempt to seal his
deposition in the case…
And so the Erik Wemple Blog hereby intervenes — strictly on
a journalistic level, of course — in the ongoing Black v. CNN case to request
that all portions of the CNN guide be made public through this proceeding. The
way CNN wants things to go down, Special Master Fred Hazouri will enjoy the
privilege of viewing the full, unredacted copy of the guide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/05/07/cnn-fights-to-keep-internal-editorial-guidelines-under-wraps-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4f1e1eee603e
See: https://childnervoussystem.blogspot.com/2017/03/transparency-update.html
http://childnervoussystem.blogspot.com/2015/06/transparency.html
No comments:
Post a Comment