CNN wants its viewers to know that it has lofty standards. But just what are those standards? In a defamation case brought by a Florida doctor, CNN’s lawyers have been fighting to reveal as little of the company’s internal journalistic guidance as possible, as previously reported in this space. Why, you might ask?
That question was answered at a hearing May 3 in Florida state court by Charles Tobin, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr LLP, which is representing CNN. Here’s how he put it, according to a transcript released last week:
Well, CNN has put a lot of time and effort into developing these policies over the years, their product. I wasn’t part of crafting them. But, generally, they’re a product of experience, they’re a product of collaboration, they’re a product of deliberation, and sometimes they’re driven by results in litigation, and smart people sit around a room and craft these.
As noted previously, smart people at other news organizations also collaborate and craft standards — and then release those standards to the public as a measure of transparency and good will. Those organizations include The Post, the New York Times, BuzzFeed and others. CNN’s competitors in TV news largely follow its policy on the standards-guide front.
Media companies, Tobin noted, have the right to decide for themselves whether to share. “And litigants don’t have the right to pierce that just because they file a lawsuit,” said Tobin, who is contesting the defamation suit filed in early 2016 by Michael Black, who led the pediatric cardiac surgery program at St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. CNN’s June 2015 story on the program was titled, “The hospital with a serious heart problem.”
Fred Hazouri, the special master assigned in the case to hear discovery squabbles, ultimately ruled against CNN in the standards-guide matter, denying its motion to redact the portions of its standards guides that lie outside the “relevant sections” for the purpose of the ongoing litigation. Does that mean that the Erik Wemple Blog and the rest of CNN’s viewership will finally get to read CNN’s likely boring internal standards-and-practices guide? Not likely: As plaintiff’s attorney Thomas Clare pointed out in the hearing, CNN has the authority under the case’s protective order to designate the materials confidential or “attorneys’ eyes only.” “We have a very flexible protective order that gives them all of those options,” Clare said.
So just to recap: CNN has to disclose its standards-and-practices guides in full to the opposing lawyers in the case. The public is likely to remain out of that loop.