Media Law in the News III

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202779325292/Judge-OKs-Libel-Suit-Against-CNN-Over-Investigative-Report?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=1

Part I - Summary of Issue
A libel case against CNN will go forward after an Atlanta federal judge found the evidence against the cable network to be substantial. The plaintiff is David Carbone, former CEO of St Mary's Medical Center. The case centers around a report CNN did investigating children's deaths at the Florida hospital. Carbone is seeking $30 million in damages from CNN, claiming that a faulty statistical analysis tainted the 2015 investigation titled, "Secret Deaths: CNN Finds High Surgical Death Rate for Children at a Florida Hospital". As a result the hospital's pediatric cardiac surgery program shut down and Carbone was forced to resign and has since been unemployed. As the case proceeds it will likely turn its focus to how CNN compiled and interpreted the statistics used in its investigation, boiling down to an "academic disagreement over statistical methodology". The judge held that Carbone's claims centering around the statistics cited by CNN presented factual questions that should be decided by a jury. Carbone contended that CNN's reporting on the hospital personally defamed him as he was at the time the hospital's chief administrator, having hired the surgeon in question in regards to the investigative report. CNN published and broadcasted Carbone's name several times in connection with the investigation. Carbone has also claimed that CNN continued to report that Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration had launched an investigation of St. Mary's sparked by its reports despite the agency issuing a statement declaring that it was not investigating the hospital. 

Part II - Legal Questions Raised
Whether or not Carbone should be considered a public figure has sway on the case. Carbone's role as the former CEO of St. Mary's should be questioned. Criteria include: plaintiff occupies a position of real or apparent importance, the public cares about the plaintiff's qualifications, does the plaintiff has access to media, does the plaintiff accept risk of media criticism. It is possible he may be considered as a public figure too, such criteria include that public figures are involved in resolving important public questions, or through their fame, help shape public opinion. If determined to be a public official/figure Carbone will need to prove actual malice, building a wall of bricks as evidence. As a private citizen he only needs to prove negligence.

Part III - Relevant Doctrine/Precedent
Going through the plaintiff's case for libel Carbone's case appears to meet all of the areas. As the report appeared on CNN, a form of mass media, publication is assumed. As it directly names and includes pictures of Carbone identification is met, as at least one person would reasonably believe the material is of and concerning the plaintiff. Defamation is also fulfilled as Carbone has demonstrated injury in his profession in his resignation and unemployment. Fault as discussed in the paragraph above is depends on Carbone's status as a public or private figure. The jury will decide on the dispute over statistical methodology, determining whether the CNN report is substantially true, capturing the "gist" or "sting" charge, examining the falsity or truth regarding CNN's assertion that St. Mary's mortality rate for pediatric cardiac surgery is three times the national average. Carbone contents that in calculating the statistic CNN compared "apples to oranges", comparing the number of more risky pediatric open heart surgeries at St. Mary's to a national average which included both risky and less risky heart surgeries. Carbone stated that upon pointing out the inaccuracy CNN "doubled down" on the original statement rather than correcting it, a fact that may potentially be used as a brick of evidence in proving actual malice or even in order to prove negligence. CNN's continued claim that the AHCA was launching a investigation appears to be blatantly false as the agency itself issued a statement asserting the opposite, that they were not investigating St. Mary's. Damages for actual injury may also be proven as Carbone lost his job as a result of the report and is now unemployed. 

Part IV- Conclusion
It seems that Carbone has a fairly solid case for libel. This specific case emphasizes the importance of the definition of falsity in a libel case, being that the statement is not substantially true, concerning the "gist"/"sting" of the charge rather than precise specificity. The importance of capturing the gist of the story over precision is highlighted here, hypothetically it would be inane to condemn CNN for its statement that St. Mary's mortality rate for pediatric cardiac surgery is three times the national average, when the mortality rate in actuality 2.98 times the national average. Nitpicking like this would be ridiculous. To me this case demonstrates and reiterates the necessity of considering whether or not a publication captured the gist of a story in examining its falsity.