Priest sues paper over apparent prank letter to editor
Father Michael McMahon
In April of 2011, the Paxton Record — a weekly published by the Champaign (Ill.) News-Gazette — ran a letter to the editor in support of gay rights and identified the author as Michael McMahon, a Catholic priest and boys’ school headmaster. The letter also said McMahon is president of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Association of Vermilion County. (“I’m guessing the Paxton Record was an unwitting participant in a stunt,” a News-Gazette commenter notes.)
The Record apologized and ran a correction, but the priest still wants at least $50,000 from the paper. His suit says:
The representation [in the letter] that Father McMahon, who is charged with the safety and spiritual growth of young Catholic men, was the leader of a sexually active, gay advocacy group headquartered at a Catholic boarding school imputes to him an inability to perform and want of integrity in the discharge of his duties as a Catholic priest and Headmaster.
Publisher John Foreman calls the suit “spurious,” and says “we don’t believe that Father McMahon was defamed by a letter suggesting he was sympathetic to the societal problems faced by gay people. That’s not defamatory.”
* Catholic school’s headmaster sues paper for libel
it’s ALWAYS “spurious” when a newspaper carelessly posts inaccurate informations that causes someone distress.
i suppose the paper will claim that the priest is a public figure — using the First Amendment as a shield, so that it an continue its sloppy, sloppy journalism.
So newspapers have stopped doing basic fact-checking? Or were they too busy blogging to do actual journalism?
They should be grateful he’s asking for only $50,000.
The increasingly obsolete practice of requiring LTEs to be “signed” has long been abused in this manner. The only fact-checking most newspapers do for LTEs is to call the phone number at the bottom of a letter-to-the-editor and ask the person who answers “Are you the writer of this letter?” It’s a wonder this kind of fakery isn’t caught more often despite superficial fact-checking efforts.
The priest in question may have a thin case, unless he is going to argue in court that he suffered real damages by being portrayed as “compassionate” and “not a homophobic bigot.”
Bill Reader,
From what I read, a Catholic priest was labeled as the president of an LGBA organization headquartered at a boarding school. That’s not going to be looked as being “compassionate.” It’s going to be looked at as “another priest with a sex club going on behind the walls of the boarding school.”
Priests, just like journalists used to, rely heavily on their reputations. This could affect enrollment rates. The Catholic Church, like all other businesses, tends to prefer that there be no bad press. And those members who are tarred, even falsely, with the brush, find that such things can limit their opportunities for advancement and for soft power within the organization.
In either case, the priest’s main point remains: the newspaper, filled with people who claim to be professionals (no, seriously, some people still think journalists ought to be professional), should have exercised a minimum standard of care. They did not.
A fact check that consists of calling the number given on the letter? Do you see the first-order error in that? Any business manager who signed off on such a policy should be fired for gross incompetence.
For any journalists still out there: when you need to find a phone number, look it up in the phone book. Don’t call the number given. Also, if someone calls you and says that they’re your bank, and asks for your credit card number, don’t give it to them. And if a stranger asks for help finding a lost puppy, don’t get into his panel van with him.
The paper screwed up. Period.
Sloppy journalism, and condemnation is deserved for the crappy newspaper and its editors, who should have apologized in a very major way, and taken appropriate remedial in-house actions. However, previous comments show lack of basic knowledge about libel law, especially the comment that a newspaper might try to essentially “hide” behind the First Amendment. Libel law is clear, and its foundations are critical. The priest is badly informed about it, as are previous comment writers.
‘Prefer to remain anonymous’ — Not sure why your screed is aimed at me. I was not defending what the newspaper did, but rather pointing out that the standard levels of “fact checking” applied to LTEs has never been very rigorous to being with. I’m surprised this kind of mistake isn’t made more often.
Still, the priest’s main point is that the newspaper screwed up and, as a result, owes him money. You also screwed up, “Prefer to remain anonymous,” by assuming my post was a defense of the newspaper in question, which it was not.
Your (seemingly hot-headed) error in judgment has caused me harm. My feeling is hurt. As a result, you should be found guilty in court and pay me $50,000, which you can contribute to Romenesko.com rather than to me directly.