MEMORANDUM

TO: MR. WILLIAM R NEWMAN

FROM: CAMERON PONDER

DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2018

RE: MSRNN, liability of Network succeeding broadcast

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On September 13th, 2018 our client, Mississippi Satellite Radio News Network (MSRNN),

produced a news broadcast in relation to the Vice President of the University of Northern

Mississippi, Janice Mindlebright. The newscast was broadcasted across fifteen radio station

affiliates across the state.

Prior to the broadcast, MSRNN received a press release containing a “UNM Public

Relations” letterhead. The newscast was based on a press release which stated that Mindlebright

was arrested and charged for embezzlement. The client admitted to not confirming the press release

with any of the appropriate enforcement agencies due to a conflict with time, before producing the

newscast. The same day our client was made aware the statements made in the newscast were not

true. The information provided by the press release were false statements made against

Mindlebright by two graduate students.

Janice Mindlebright filed a libel suit against Mississippi Satellite Radio and the two

graduate students involved in the creation of the false press release. MSRNN was served with a

complaint and summons on the same date as the broadcasted newscast, September 13th, 2018.
 QUESTION PRESENTED

Can a broadcast network be held liable for producing falsified information, pertaining to

an individual, to which was given to the network by a fabricated source?

BRIEF ANSWER

If the individual is to be considered a public figure the broadcast network cannot be held

liable, unless there is proof of actual malice; if the individual is to be considered a private figure,

the broadcast network would have had to commit negligence. There are a multitude of

Mississippi state cases and statutes which characterize whom may be considered a public figure

and provide time restrictions on such liable suits, thus limiting those in the public eye to be

subjected as private figures in defamatory/liability suits and provide a grace period for those

accused.

DISCUSSION

“We emphasize that the matter of legitimate public interest need not produce actual

controversy. It is enough that the matter is in the public domain. Any person who becomes

involved, voluntarily or involuntarily, in any matter of legitimate public interest -- and this

certainly includes the method of administration of any program of services financed in whole or

in part by public monies, becomes in that context a vortex public figure who is subject to fair

comment.” Charles B. Ferguson, ET AL., Appellant v. William E. Watkins, ET AL., Appelles, 448

So. 2d 271, 1984 Miss.

On June 15, 1978, William E. Watkins, a columnist for The North Mississippi Times,

published an article regarding the alleged threats, from three physicians: Drs. Robert P. Tate,

Charles B. Ferguson, and David S. Anderson, to resign if the Marshall County hospital’s

administrator’s contract was renewed, as well as criticized the hospital’s emergency room.
Watkins refused to retract the article. The court held that due to the fact the hospital was a

publicly funded hospital, the three physicians were to be considered vortex public figures.

Because of the physicians’ status as public figures and the lack of proof of actual malice from the

columnist, all three doctors were subject to commentary by local newspapers. Charles B.

Ferguson, ET AL., Appellant v. William E. Watkins, ET AL., Appelles, 448 So. 2d 271, 1984

Miss.

Similarly, Mrs. Mindlebright is employed by a public university and currently holds a

title in which would place her in a position of familiarity and notoriety in her community.

Comparable to the three physicians employed at Marshall County Hospital, Mrs. Mindlebright

cannot sue on the basis of liable because MSRNN did not act with actual malice, therefore any

argument of negligence can be viewed as insignificant.

In a case similar to that of Mrs. Mindlebright, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in New

York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, that in a libel action

brought by a public official about his or her behavior and against his or her official conduct,

there must be proof of actual malice. The case involved an elected official of Montgomery,

Alabama, whom had been alleged of police action taken against students whom were

participating in a civil rights demonstration. The news article included statements, to which were

later revealed to be false.

The fact that actual malice can be defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, as having

maintained intent to harm or defame any person with the status of a public official, indicates that

MSRNN cannot be held with the charge of actual malice. Though the information presented was

falsified, it was not intentionally produced. The information received was purposely manipulated

by a second party, to which created unfound documentation.

 The date in which Mrs. Mindlebright decided to file suit, should also be taken into

consideration. Janice Mindlebright filed the libel suit the day the newscast was broadcasted. In

the state of Mississippi, before any civil suit regarding the publication, broadcast, or telecast can

be brought, there must be a ten (10) day period in which the network is able to correct the

mistakes made in the prior announcement. MS Code § 95-1-5 (2014)

CONCLUSION

The laws of Mississippi support the fact that Vice President of the University of Northern

Mississippi, Mrs. Janice Mindlebright, is to be considered a public figure in her community.

With Mrs. Mindlebright’s status as a public figure, there is no necessary search for negligence,

but instead only necessary proof of actual malice. New York Co. v. Sullivan and Ferguson v.

Watson are both cases that assist in defining who a public figure is and the necessary proof to

impose a liability on the Mississippi Satellite Radio News Network. Mrs.Mindlebright will need

to prove actual malice in order to continue her suit., while negligence does not play an essential

role in this suit.

Following proof of actual malice, Janice Mindlebright, served a complaint and summons

to the Mississippi Satellite Radio News Network the day of which is in direct violation of the

Mississippi Code § 95-1-5 (2014). There was no chance for our client, MSRNN, to retract the

statement and explain to the network’s audiences how the network received falsified documents.

Due to the fact Janice Mindlebright did not correctly follow the procedure provided by the

Mississippi State statutes or can be viewed a private figure, I find that the Mississippi Radio

Satellite News Network, will not be found liable regarding the suit pursued by Janice

Mindlebright.