Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/10/07

This page was last updated on July 10, 2007.

Thin gruel: A critic should not be in trouble for an opinion; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 10, 2007.

This is yet another plea for special treatment of so-called “reporters.” I suspect we’re not getting the full story below, but I’m too lazy to investigate. I don’t know who’s right in this case. All I’m doing is pointing out a completely predictable response by the PG – and probably most so-called “news” outlets.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“An experienced critic for a newspaper walks into a restaurant and orders a strip steak and fries. He describes it as ‘miserably tough and fatty’ in his review. The restaurant takes exception and sues the critic and the newspaper for libel, alleging that the reviewer actually had a rib-eye steak.

“For reasons that escape us, the suit isn’t tossed out of court as an affront to First Amendment guarantees that protect opinion. Instead, a Pennsylvania court allows free-speech precedent to take a back seat to a restaurant’s claim for unspecified damages.”

[RWC] The First Amendment doesn’t protect libel or slander. Don’t ask me what the differences are between the two types of steak or if the suit would have been filed had the critic identified his steak as rib-eye.

“The reporter is then ordered to give a deposition on camera, which will jeopardize his effectiveness as a restaurant critic if the footage becomes public. Sound far-fetched?

“Not according to an account by The Associated Press. Restaurant critic Craig LaBan of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote a less-than-flattering capsule review of Chops, a steakhouse in suburban Philly. Nearly a decade on the beat had not prepared him for the possibility that his Feb. 4 piece would be considered anything other than protected speech.”

[RWC] Translation: The critic never thought he would be held responsible for the factual content of his pieces.

“All critics expect disappointed, sometimes angry, reactions after a negative review -- but not a lawsuit that could discourage honest critiques in the future while delivering punishment for one that has already run.

“We sympathize with Mr. LaBan’s desire to keep his identity obscured so that he doesn’t receive preferential treatment from restaurants, but we’re more aghast that he has to defend his opinion in court in the first place.

“The restaurant owner insists that the suit against Mr. LaBan is for a false assertion of fact, not an opinion. At issue is the critic’s description of what he said he ate versus what the restaurant said he ate.

“In the end, this is a distinction without a difference. A victory by the restaurant would result in tentative reviews and chilled speech -- and probably not just at the Inquirer. For the sake of the First Amendment, let’s hope the judge rules correctly in the case. There’s just no beef in this cockamamie lawsuit.”

[RWC] Here’s what the PG is arguing. In essence, the PG claims the difference between “assertion of fact” and “an opinion” is “a distinction without a difference.” This means as readers we need to treat all articles the same, whether they appear in the “news” pages or the op-ed section.

The PG asserts that even when there is a question about facts presented in a story – not a person’s opinion, reporters and their newspapers should be protected.