A federal judge has ruled that “Jackie,” the pseudonymous source in the discredited Rolling Stone story about sexual assault at UVa must sit for a deposition in a defamation action brought by a former university administrator. Judge Glen Conrad (W.D. Va.). refused to quash a subpoena for the woman, who claims to have been the victim of sexual assault in a fraternity house, to be deposed by the plaintiff. But Judge Conrad did limit the deposition to five hours over two days (different than the presumption 1 day/7 hours) in the rule. And he ordered the deposition be sealed.
On that last point: The Slate piece ends with the following:
Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School, told The Washington Post this January that he thinks that’s for the best: “It’s an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her … She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She’s not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that’s my sense now.”
Coll is right, of course, that the attention should stay on Rolling Stone and Erdely, who, unlike Jackie, had a clear responsibility to their readers . . .
I am not necessarily questioning the decision to seal the deposition, at least for now. But I am not sure about the rationale stated in the article–she was not responsible for the journalism mistakes and she did not breach a journalistic obligation to the public. Rolling Stone‘s “journalism mistake” was relying on her story, making it the centerpiece of the article and not sufficiently checking it out. Which is not to say the source should be a party to the action or should be liable, but it is to say that it is too simplistic to paint her as a total innocent in all of this.
So I am curious, as a matter of journalism law and ethics–How should we understand the obligation of a source in a story that goes bad?
Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 5, 2016 at 09:50 PM
Comments
I also am curious to know why Prof. Wasserman is so certain that Jackie did not libel the plaintiff, or anyone at all. My understanding is that Jackie’s interviews with Rolling Stone were recorded. For example in Rolling Stone’s 4/5/15 post-mortem article, it says “We compared transcripts Erdely submitted of her recorded interviews with Jackie with the audio files and found the transcripts to be accurate.” While I am not an expert on libel, I believe that, at least in many (most?) jurisdictions, publication by audio recording counts as libel. So why aren’t those recordings of Jackie’s statements a sufficient base for a potentially viable libel claim?
Posted by: Brennan | Apr 11, 2016 12:48:17 PM
It just occurred to me that you might be using “libel” in its technical sense- a written act of defamation – where others often loosely use it to mean “defame”. I understood her communications with the reporter to take place over email and text as well as orally.
Posted by: Adam Scales | Apr 6, 2016 12:11:07 PM
Howard,
How can you say she didn’t libel anyone? I must be missing something here. If Jackie told the reporter, “The U.VA Dean told me not to make a big deal out of this, adding that ‘no one wants to send their daughter to the rape school'”, that would tend to lower Dean Eramo in the esteem of the community. All that is necessary is for Jackie to “publish” this statement to the Rolling Stone reporter (and it’s not as if the highly foreseeable amplification to a broader audience helps Jackie’s case). Of course, Jackie’s statement might’ve been true – but I’m sure you’ll agree with me there is room for doubt on that one.
There is of course the technically-interesting “group libel” claim by the fraternity, and a claim by the readily-identifiable student lifeguard who is not in fact Haven Monahan. Given the extreme closeness of these claims here, there is further reason to disagree with the suggestion that she didn’t libel anyone.
Granted, you must know all this. So, I think me must be talking past each other somehow. Can you help me understand how?
Adam
Posted by: Adam Scales | Apr 6, 2016 12:05:00 PM
She didn’t libel anyone, certainly not the plaintiff in this case. The libel of the administrator only came about from the broader reporting.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Apr 6, 2016 8:47:15 AM
She lied, she completely fabricated a story. Yes, Rolling Stone should have figured out that she was a liar, and it will wind up paying big damages for its failure to do so. But that doesn’t excuse Jackie’s lies, for which she has never been held responsible. It’s too bad she wasn’t named in the libel suit, too.
Posted by: Douglas Levene | Apr 6, 2016 1:22:51 AM