PHIL 50: Case Essay

In Private Wrongs, Arthur Ripstein discusses a relatively new topic in law and philosophy called “responsible journalism.” It’s a concept meant to protect journalists from being attacked for their work if it is later proven false, thereby supporting journalistic efforts. Unlike defenses to defamation, responsible journalism seeks to permit journalists to publish information they have fact-checked and verified, so long as the situation meets specific requirements. Ripstein’s analysis focuses on two conditions that a case must satisfy to attempt a responsible journalism defense. Firstly, it must be determined if the matter was of public concern. Ripstein quotes an explanation from a case ruling in England, which phrased it by saying, “The necessary pre-condition of reliance on qualified privilege in this context is that the matter published should be one of public interest,” arguing that the material being discussed should be something that affects the public. However, he later clarifies that “It has been repeatedly and rightly said that what engages the interest of the public may not be material which engages the public interest” (Ripstein, pp.228-9). This distinction is important to note because it means the issue doesn’t need to be the most spectacular breaking news story that everyone is talking about. It simply has to be something that would affect the public, such as local or state legislation or new construction in their city. The topic may be boring, but as long as it concerns people in the general public, it is valid under this ruling. Ripstein notes that this also means it must relate to public figures or institutions, unlike defamation, which targets private citizens. This point, Ripstein argues, is why responsible journalism focuses on the separation between private and public matters rather than on freedom of speech and the right to reputation, which also gives responsible journalism a much narrower scope for its application. The second facet is whether or not the journalist acted reasonably in verifying their sources. Ripstein mentions the press’s role as a sort of “fourth estate” representing democracy, yet with this comes a responsibility that the defense must meet, as he states, “A journalist needs to check his or her sources diligently in order to be acting within the role at all” (Ripstein, pp.230-1). This condition separates it from other forms of defamation defense, as responsibility is a required criterion. Should a journalist report on matters of public interest or public figures and verify the credibility of their sources before publication, Ripstein believes the defense of responsible journalism protects them.

In 2019, Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann was filmed in what appeared to be a standoff with a native american man singing and banging a drum in Washington, D.C. While waiting at a bus station following an anti-abortion protest in which Sandmann and many of his classmates were involved, Sandmann was recorded standing in front of Nathan Phillips, a Native American veteran of the US Marines, who was chanting and playing his drum, as the other students began shouting and jeering at him. Initially, the incident was reported with only this information, painting the students as racists attacking an innocent person, with Sandmann being the face of their collective actions. Yet, as more information was revealed, the narrative became less clear. Initially, reports from news organizations relied solely on the account Phillips gave after the incident. In his retelling, the 64-year-old describes how the Covington Catholic students had gotten into a shouting match with the Black Hebrew Israelites, a religious group that preaches anti-white, Jewish, and LGBTQ sentiments. Phillips claimed he was trying to use music and chants to defuse the escalating situation when Sandmann blocked his path, and the other students began shouting problematic remarks. The video shows Sandmann and many other students wearing MAGA hats, creating a political atmosphere around the event. Days later, Sandmann gave his statement in an interview on NBC’s Today. In his account, he refutes key points of Phillips’ testimony, saying he didn’t hear his classmates shouting any racist remarks and were instead using “school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group” (Stewart, Vox, par.10). Sandmann also denies trying to block Phillips in his path and instead felt that he was singled out in their interaction.

Sandmann and his family sued the Washington Post for their coverage of the story. In defending the Post’s stance that its reporting was fair, I would look to the two main parts of responsible journalism, as defined and explained by Ripstein. In terms of dealing with public issues, the Post can argue that the political nature of the confrontation, given that the students were wearing hats supporting the Trump Campaign, made this an issue of public interest that it was obligated to cover. As for their diligence in checking sources and verifying their information, the Post stated it was “entitled to report Phillip’s interpretation of the encounter and noting that it also reported Sandmann’s account once it was available” (Farhi, The Washington Post, par.13). Clearly, the post reported on the information that was available, and though the burden of responsibility is placed upon them, it is clear they took the necessary measures before publication.

Looking at Sandmann’s defense, his lawsuit states, “‘The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump’” and that Sandmann was specifically targeted “‘because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap’” (Farhi, Post). Though this case was settled, had it gone to court, Sandmann’s attorneys would have proved that responsible journalism doesn’t apply here. Firstly, the issue concerns a matter of public interest, but, as Ripstein specifies, it should concern a public figure, which Sandmann is not. He is a private citizen with no public office or institution associated with him, so he has a strong argument that he was defamed when the Post published its article, as defamation law targets private citizens. Second, the Post did appear to attempt to cover the article, so it would be difficult to argue for any sort of agenda in court. However, the Post’s claim that Sandmann was blocking Phillips and “‘would not allow him to retreat’” is misleading at best and negligent at worst. The video from various sources provides no clear evidence that Phillips was denied movement in any way; instead, he chose to be in front of Sandmann, further supporting the high schooler’s original statement that he was possibly targeted by Phillips at the moment.

While neither side is entirely free of wrongful action, Sandmann likely has the advantage in arguing against the Post and other news agencies. Based on Ripstein’s analysis of responsible journalism and its applications, their coverage of a private citizen and their exaggerated claims surrounding the evidence available at the time make them most likely liable for defamation against Sandmann. This case is an excellent example of why Ripstein’s definition of responsible journalism is a valid legal theory applicable to some instances. His explanation protects journalists who report on public individuals and topics while maintaining high standards and verifying sources, should their interpretation prove false. Still, it does not go far enough to defend them if they target a private individual or corporation, or its actions. It is difficult, however, to explain what constitutes proper journalistic integrity and responsibility in gathering and presenting evidence. A possible revision would be to clarify the requirements a journalist or reporter must meet to argue they made an effort to report the truth based on the information provided, such as reaching out to people involved or obtaining mandatory accounts from witnesses.