Friday, March 25, 2011
Libel
This story in the AJC today about a Nevada doctor who is accused of reusing needles on multiple patients could have easily been libelous had it not been handled correctly. The doctor is identified by name and, considering his patients are now being urged to be tested for HIV, will probably never be able to work as a doctor again. The writer was careful to include only statements from the Southern Nevada Health District, which is involved in the investigation. Had the story included statements from affected patients or someone closer to the situation, it could have easily turned into libel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, this story could have turned libelous very quickly, depending on what sources the author decided to use. Using facts from the Nevada Health District make it exceedingly difficult to prove falsity, negligence, or any of the many forms of malice I am currently cramming into my subconscious the JRLC test on Tuesday. Dr. Lee would be very proud of the author of this article.
ReplyDeleteI just think this story is crazy and the writer did a good job of not going out of line. By sticking to the facts and not just adding the he said she said quotes that would have made it more juicy and entertaining, the story was able to stray away from libel but it could have easily gone the other way.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Sarah's comment. It is a crazy story, and I feel like any story surrounding health care or a practices of a doctor is definitely a touchy subject that could potentially turn libelous. Especially when the health issue at hand is involving a doctor accused of reusing needles which may lead to the spread of HIV. The writer did a good job of writing the story by strictly sticking to the facts instead of including emotional commentary from patients. I think this is a great blog post because it shows an example of a journalist getting it right.
ReplyDelete