A Constitutional Crisis Averted in Connecticut

Abstract

credit him; as well, the Boston Herald was interested in creating a "media frenzy" with this series of articles (at 762), despite assertions to the contrary by Wedge, as seen in the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, and New York Times the day after the Massachusetts's high court's decision. Nevertheless, the question becomes, does this decision chill future media coverage on judges or the courts? What will happen, for instance, the next time the media question a judicial decision, whether from a local trial court or the United States Supreme Court? Perhaps Wedge was the rogue reporter as the court implies, such that this defamation award was appropriate. However, the ramifications of the court's opinion seem to apply beyond unethical reporting, as the ruling potentially ensnares as liable for defamation journalists or others who publish critiques about the courts. At a mini mum, the opinion admonishes journalists to be thorough in their investigations. As Stephen Burgard, director of the School of Journalism at Northeastern University, said in reaction to this case, "This is a wake-up call to reporters everywhere that you better have your reporting down solid. You better have heard it yourself, or you bet ter have people on the record" (Boston Globe, May 8, 2007, at Bl). In addition, notwithstanding the actual-malice standard intended to protect the media under the First Amendment, when a judge sues his or her critics for defamation, the critics risk having the plaintiff's judicial colleagues hearing the lawsuit siding with the judge alleging defamation, or at least having the plaintiff (as Judge Murphy perhaps did) try to leave the impression that defendants do not stand a chance, jsj