Westmoreland v. CBS

Last updated

Westmoreland v. CBS
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameGeneral William C. Westmoreland, Ambassador Richard Helms, Appellant v. CBS, Inc., et al.
ArguedFebruary 14, 1985
DecidedAugust 20, 1985
Citation(s)770 F.2d 1168, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 255
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting George Edward MacKinnon, Abner Joseph Mikva, Kenneth Winston Starr
Case opinions
Majority George Edward MacKinnon

Westmoreland v. CBS was a $120 million libel suit brought in 1982 by former U.S. Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland against CBS, Inc. for broadcasting on its program CBS Reports a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. Westmoreland also sued the documentary's narrator, investigative reporter Mike Wallace; the producer, investigative journalist and best-selling author George Crile, and the former CIA analyst, Sam Adams, who originally broke the story on which the broadcast was based.

Contents

Westmoreland's claims were governed by the landmark 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which held that, in order to recover for defamation, a "public figure" like Westmoreland must prove that the defendant made the statements in question with "actual malice" (essentially, with knowledge, or reckless disregard, of falsity). [1]

The suit was originally filed in state court in South Carolina, but was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The trial ended in February 1985 when the case was settled out of court just before it would have gone to the jury. [2]

Circumstances

U.S. Army General William C. Westmoreland served four years in Vietnam, from 1964 to 1968, as COMUSMACV—Commander U.S. Military Assistance Command Vietnam. He was in command during the Tet Offensive, a surprise, country-wide attack on the U.S. forces by the combined forces of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam and the Vietnam People's Army in 1968. The attack is widely viewed as having contributed to a growing perception in the United States that the U.S. had underestimated enemy strength and resolve, and that, in contrast to assurances from Westmoreland and the Johnson administration, there was no "light at the end of the tunnel." Walter Cronkite visited Vietnam in February 1968, in the immediate aftermath of Tet, and returned home and gave his famous "mired in a stalemate" on-air editorial. "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion." [3] Several weeks later, President Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.

CBS broadcast the documentary on January 23, 1982. [4] It contended that Westmoreland had contributed to the public reaction to Tet by manipulating intelligence about enemy strength in order to create the impression of progress. [1] Westmoreland contended that politics had not influenced the intelligence reports of his command. [5] Intelligence officers working under Westmoreland and contemporaneous classified documents supported the documentary's contention that Army intelligence in Westmoreland's command had been manipulated for political purposes. Other officers denied any such manipulation.

Shortly after trial in the Westmoreland case began, another famous libel trial got underway in the same federal court house: Then former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon's suit against TIME magazine . Sharon challenged one passage in a lengthy article detailing the findings of the official Israeli investigation into Sharon's responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist forces during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. On January 25, 1985, the jury in the Sharon case found for the defendant while the Westmoreland v. CBS trial was still in progress. The Sharon jury stated that TIME acted "negligently and carelessly" but did not find evidence of actual malice. [1]

Summary judgment motion

CBS made a motion for a summary judgment, claiming immunity from libel for doing a commentary on a public figure under the precedent established in New York Times v. Sullivan. At the onset, the presiding judge ruled that under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the First Amendment, Westmoreland, as a public figure, must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that CBS acted with actual malice in gathering the evidence and putting it together in the documentary. This is legally a heavy burden of proof and a higher standard than a nonpublic figure would need to sue for defamation.[ citation needed ]

Trial

A conservative public-interest law firm, Capital Legal Foundation, brought the suit on September 13, 1982, on Westmoreland's behalf, and its president, Dan Burt, served as Westmoreland's pro bono attorney. [6] The suit was funded by grants from several conservative organizations, such as the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation whose goals were to kill CBS Reports and turn back the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan rule. [7] CBS's defense was led by David Boies of the firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Westmoreland's case went to trial in October 1984. Westmoreland charged that the investigators asked biased and slanted questions, selectively edited interviews (for example, giving a two-minute excerpt of a 90-minute interview and portraying that selection as representative), and selectively chose persons to interview supportive of CBS's point of view. He also charged CBS with editing interview tapes dishonestly and taking statements out of context. Westmoreland charged CBS with reckless misstatements of evidence and contended these distortions indicated malice.[ citation needed ] The allegations about editing were not borne out by the evidence and the ultimate questions at trial became whether the allegations against Westmoreland were true and whether CBS was entitled to believe the high-ranking military officers who made those allegations in their interviews and stuck by them at trial.

CBS defended the documentary as true and called the military officers in question as witnesses at trial. They testified both at deposition and at trial that their criticisms of Westmoreland had been fairly represented in the documentary and they stood by them. Major General Joseph McChristian, Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence under Westmoreland, testified at trial that when he had presented new increased enemy strength estimates, Westmoreland had responded that sending these figures to Washington would "create a political bombshell" and would "embarrass my commander in chief [President Johnson]." [8] General McChristian testified that, in withholding these figures, Westmoreland, "in being loyal to the President, was disloyal to his country." [9]

McChristian's testimony has been seen as a "dramatic, consequential, and determinative of the outcome.". [10]

After McChristian stepped down, CBS called another military intelligence officer, Col. Gains Hawkins, who had worked under McChristian and Westmoreland. Hawkins's testimony supported McChristian's; Hawkins reaffirmed his allegations in his CBS interviews and in the documentary.

Westmoreland's counsel, Dan Burt, had been hoping for a simple verdict from the jury, finding for Westmoreland or CBS; that way, if Westmoreland lost, he could claim that the jury concluded that the documentary was false, but under the strict legal standard had been unable to find that CBS had acted with "actual malice." [11] When the trial court judge, the Honorable Pierre Leval, informed counsel that he intended to ask the jury to render separate verdicts on truth, actual malice, and injury, Burt told the Judge he was concerned, because "If he loses on truth, it will kill the old man." [12] After the conference with the Judge, Burt met with Westmoreland, and the two men agreed to pursue settlement.

On February 18, 1985, shortly after McChristian's testimony, with Col. Hawkins still on the stand, and with the five-month trial expected to go to the jury within days, Westmoreland agreed to dismiss the case without payment, retraction or apology from CBS. Both sides agreed to pay their own legal fees, and Westmoreland and CBS released simultaneous public statements. CBS stated that it had never intended to say that "General Westmoreland was unpatriotic or disloyal in performing his duties as he saw them." [1] Westmoreland said "General Westmoreland respects the long and distinguished journalistic tradition of CBS and the rights of journalists to examine the complex issues of Vietnam and to present perspectives contrary to his own." [13]

Westmoreland declared "victory," but later conceded that his team's "jury watcher" had concluded he was likely to lose. [14] The New York Times reported that Westmoreland had "surrendered to the evidence that . . . he and some of his aides in Vietnam in 1967 manipulated the estimates of enemy strength, apparently for political effect." "At the end, he stood in imminent danger of having a jury confirm the essential truth of the CBS report. For, in court, as on the original program, the general could not get past the testimony of high-ranking former subordinates who confirmed his having colored some intelligence information." [15] One of the jurors, speaking to the press when the trial adjourned, stated "The evidence in favor of CBS was overwhelming." [16]

Significance

Westmoreland's decision to dismiss the case before the jury reached a decision prevented an appeal that might have created a legal landmark. Instead, this high-profile case provided a practical demonstration of what many already understood: That any public figure seeking damages for libel must follow the stringent standards set in the precedent of 376 U.S. 254. Further, a public figure must prove actual malice, as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, even in the face of allegations of media misconduct. [1]

Finally, the case demonstrated an old adage: bringing a libel suit is generally a poor way to burnish a reputation. Westmoreland's suit brought greater attention to the CBS documentary and its allegations against him; the testimony of high-ranking military officers at trial provided further support for those allegations, in a highly public forum. Allegations that otherwise might have been forgotten are now part of any Westmoreland biography. [8] [11]

On the other hand, the lawsuit emboldened wealthy companies and political foundations to sue or threaten to sue in order to counteract unfavorable or deceptive press reports. In 1993, General Motors sued NBC over a Dateline report in which NBC producers had staged an explosion with model rocket engines in order to claim that the fuel tanks on GM trucks were unsafe. In response, NBC management fired the news director and producer and issued a public apology in exchange for GM dropping the suit. In 1994, Philip Morris sued ABC News for an unprecedented $10 billion over the Day One report “Smoke Screen” which exposed their manipulation of nicotine levels, [17] but the case was settled without trial and with an apology. [18] In 1995, the Brown & Williamson tobacco company threatened to sue CBS over a 60 Minutes interview of whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand who exposed a similar manipulation of nicotine, but CBS chose to pull the segment. [19]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Christianson, Stephen G (1994). Great American Trials. Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press. pp.  738–740. ISBN   0-8103-9134-1.
  2. ↑ "Vietnam: A Documentary Collection – Westmoreland v CBS". University of Maryland Libraries. Archived from the original on June 23, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
  3. ↑ "Who, What, When, Where, Why: Report from Vietnam by Walter Cronkite,". CBS Evening News. 1968-02-27.
  4. ↑ "The Uncounted Enemy: The Vietnam Deception". The Museum of Broadcast Communication. Archived from the original on June 20, 2002. Retrieved November 13, 2007.
  5. ↑ Wirtz, James J. (1994). The Tet Offensive: Intelligence failure in war. Cornell University Press. p. 161. ISBN   0801482097 . Retrieved November 13, 2007.
  6. ↑ Grace Ferrari Levine, “Television Journalism on Trial: Westmoreland v. CBS”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics 5, no. 2 (June 1990): 110.
  7. ↑ Tom Mascaro, “Uncounted Enemy, The Archived 2002-06-20 at the Wayback Machine ”, in The Encyclopedia of Television. Museum of Broadcast Communications.
  8. 1 2 Sorley, Lewis. Westmoreland, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011, 291–92.
  9. ↑ Sorley, Westmoreland, 292.
  10. ↑ Id.
  11. 1 2 Zaffiri, Samuel. Westmoreland. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1994, 429.
  12. ↑ Zaffiri, Westmoreland, 430.
  13. ↑ Sorely, Westmoreland, 293.
  14. ↑ Sorley, Westmoreland, 293.
  15. ↑ Editorial, "A General Surrenders," New York Times (February 19, 1982).
  16. ↑ Roth, The Juror and the General, p. 299.
  17. ↑ Michael Janofsky, “Philip Morris Accuses ABC of Libel”, The New York Times (March 25, 1994): A15.
  18. ↑ Steve Weinberg, “ABC, Philip Morris and the Infamous Apology”, Columbia Journalism Review (Nov/Dec 1995).
  19. ↑ Tom Mascaro, “Uncounted Enemy, The: A Vietnam Deception”, in Encyclopedia of Television, 2nd edn. Ed. by Horace Newcomb (NY–London: Routledge, 2013), 2397–9.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Westmoreland</span> 25th Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1914–2005)

William Childs Westmoreland was a United States Army general, most notably commander of United States forces during the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1968. He served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1968 to 1972.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Libel case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In United States defamation law, actual malice is a legal requirement imposed upon public officials or public figures when they file suit for libel. Compared to other individuals who are less well known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard for what they must prove before they may succeed in a defamation lawsuit.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alex Alben</span> American technology executive and academic

Alex Alben, American technology executive, author and law professor, served as the first Chief Privacy Officer of Washington State from April 2015 to May 2019. Previously, he was a candidate for the United States House of Representatives in 2004, a campaign which drew national attention because of the high tech district and the media personalities involved in the race, as noted by media coverage in The New York Times, "In a House Campaign With Personality, One Candidate Has the Microphone," June 12, 2004. He ran as a Democrat in the Eighth Congressional District of Washington. Alben is the author of "Analog Days—How Technology Rewrote Our Future," and consults to public sector organizations, high tech and energy companies on privacy and security related matters. He is the founder of Get Smart Software, LLC, and a lecturer at the UCLA School of Law, teaching courses on Privacy, Cybersecurity and Internet Law. Artificial Intelligence, Antitrust and speech regulation on social media platforms are the focus of his current research and writing.

The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception was a controversial television documentary aired as part of the CBS Reports series on January 23, 1982. The 90-minute program, produced by George Crile III and narrated by Mike Wallace, asserted that in 1967 intelligence officers under General William Westmoreland, the commander of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MAC-V), had manipulated intelligence estimates in order to show far fewer communist personnel in South Vietnam than there actually were, thereby creating the impression that the Vietnam War was being won.

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Crile III</span> American journalist (1945-2006)

George Washington Crile III was an American journalist most closely associated with his three decades of work at CBS News. He specialized in dangerous and controversial subjects, resulting in both praise and controversy. He received an Emmy Award, Peabody Award, and Edward R. Murrow Award.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Samuel Alexander Adams, known as Sam Adams, was an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He is best known for his role in discovering that during the mid-1960s American military intelligence had underestimated the number of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army soldiers. Although his opinion was challenged, he pushed the case for a higher troop count. The issue under debate was called the Order of Battle (O/B). His efforts in 1967 met strong and persistent opposition from the Army which, in the short-term, prevailed against him.

CBS Reports is the umbrella title used for documentaries by CBS News which aired starting in 1959 through the 1990s. The series sometimes aired as a wheel series rotating with 60 Minutes, as a series of its own, or as specials. The program aired as a constant series from 1959 to 1971.

Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> 2011 US legal case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., et al. is a libel case brought by Judge Ernest B. Murphy against the Boston Herald and Dave Wedge which centers on a series of articles about the New Bedford Superior Court judge that were published by the Herald.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Order of battle for the Viet Cong</span>

The order of battle for the Viet Cong concerned a contested American intelligence issue of the Vietnam War. Arising In the mid-1960s, its focus was the count of enemy combatants. Often called the order of battle controversy, the debate came to divide the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and challenge military intelligence. The politics and strategy of the war became involved in the debate.

John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard was a trial held in Fairfax County, Virginia, from April 11 to June 1, 2022, that ruled on allegations of defamation between formerly married American actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Depp, as plaintiff, filed a complaint of defamation against defendant Heard claiming $50 million in damages; Heard filed counterclaims against Depp claiming $100 million in damages.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.