Right of Reply and American Infotainment
The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled against ‘right of reply’ statutes for print journalism - mandating publication of subjects’ replies to editorial criticism, usually contemporaneously - in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. Then-Chief Justice Burger’s opinion, which left open the door for libel claims and retraction mandates, states:
“The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”
I agree, given the protection of libel laws, the 1st Amendment takes precedence. Still, it’s fun imagining how the practice might check cable news into reporting…just the facts. While it could perpetuate the broken-record nature of reporting on slow days, or replace direct attacks with more innuendo, there would be hope of broadening the topics covered and increasing the amount of investigative journalism.
Picture Bill O’Reilly’s, or Sean Hannity’s, or even Keith Olbermann’s, exasperation if subjects they attacked in commentary could opt on for, say, 2 minutes - outside the confines of those quasi-interviews where hosts steer dialogue with loaded or distorted questions - just rebutting the prior segment in monologue.