first magazine
DESCRIPTION
A project conducted for COMM 307: Media Law and Ethics reporting, summarizing and analyzing Engler et. Al v. Lyman et Al.TRANSCRIPT
FIRSTmagazine
Supreme Court:
We break down her victory
against the Cattle
Ranchers
Oprah’s Beef
Ethics How much influence should an opinion leader have?
The Authority on First Amendment Issues
VOL. IV:5 | May 2011
First magazine is a student magazine taking an interest in media law & ethics, especially pertaining to the First Amendment. Our goal is to present issues and perspectives that strengthen healthy discourse on this important foundation of American society and culture.
Editorial Staff
Manging Director Andra Hansen
Editor James Valentine
Reporter Katelyn Wray
Human Interest Ben LeGrow
Ethics Editorial Kayla GilbertBetsey Tracy
Opinion Writers Ben LeGrowBetsey TracyJames ValentineKatelyn WrayKayla Gilbert
FIRST Contents
First News Oprah’s Beef: Supreme Court rules in Oprah’s favor.
First Light Minimizing Harm: SPJ Code of Ethics
First Person The Oprah Effect
First Point Ethics Question: How much influence should an opinion leader have?
First Take First Magazine writers share their opinions on the verdict.
FIRSTLIGHT
Note from the Editorial Board:
First Magazine is dedicated to upholding ethical practices that allow for free debate and protection of the First Amendment.
Each issue we take a moment to spotlight various journalist code of ethics in a effort to promote best practices.
Each Editor takes a turn to find a standard to highlight.
To learn more about the Society of Professional Journalists, visit www.spj.org
Dear Readers,
In this edition of First we take a look at the events and questions that surround the Supreme Court ruling involving Oprah Winfrey and the Cattle Ranch industry.
From an ethical side of view, the situation provides an interesting question for journalist and communiation professionals: what is the balance between reporting the facts and causing undue harm?
Our fantastic writers will cover this in greater detail in this issue, but consider some of these thoughts, taken from the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics:
We want to hear from our readers. Visit our Web site www.First.Magazine.com and share with us your thoughts and impressions on what we explore in this issue.
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort
• Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and other who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
EditorJames Valentine
FIRSTNEWS
AMARILLO, TX- Cattle rancher Paul Engler and Cactus Feeders, a Texas producer, walk away empty handed after losing their trade libel case against Oprah Winfrey.
The case started when Oprah Winfrey did a “Dangerous Food” show. The show was taped April 11, 1996. Guests included Lyman, Dr. Gary Weber, Dr. Will Hueston, Linda Merler, Dr. James Miller, and Beryl Rimmer. During the taping Winfrey discussed several topics with her guests, including the discovery of new-variant CJD or Mad Cow Disease.
After taping, the show was edited to fit the time requirement causing many important facts and opinions to be cut out. On April 16th the “Dangerous Food” show was broadcast. During the show Lyman, a vegetarian and director of the Humane Society’s “Eating With a Conscience Campaign, stated many extreme facts and opinions. One comment he claimed was, “100,000 cows die for no apparent reason and are ground up and fed to other cows. If even one of the dead cows had “mad cow disease,” thousands of other cows might be infected.” Oprah responded by saying, “ It has stopped me from eating another burger”.
Shortly after, the fed cattle market in the Texas Panhandle dropped drastically. Before the show aired finished cattle sold for $61.90 per hundred weight and after the show the price fell to the mid-50’s.
Affected by the drop, cattle rancher Paul Engler, sued Winfrey and Lyman for $6.7 million, which Engler claimed he had lost. Engler sued under the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act.
Under the Act, a person may be held liable for damages sustained by the producer of a perishable food product if that person knowingly disseminates false information to the public stating or implying that the producer’s product is not safe for public consumption.
The issue arises whether the appellees, Winfrey and Lyman, knowingly disseminated false information, showing American beef is not fit for public consumption. Winfrey took her show down to Armarillo, Texas while a jury in federal court tried the case.
During the 5 ½ hour debate the following was established. Lyman’s opinions were based on truthful, established fact, and are not actionable under the First Ammendment. His opinions and views were extreme but, as stated during the case “exaggeration does not equal defamation”.
Also Winfrey and Harpo Productions were not held liable for editing the “Dangerous Food” show. It was stated during the case that it is common public knowledge that television shows tape more than is needed and then edit down to fit time requirements.
The cattlemen’s evidence concerning the edits made to the “Dangerous Food” broadcast fell short of satisfying the Perishable Foods Act’s standard for liability. Winfrey was vindicated by the findings, that no harm occurred to the beef industry because she did not defame cattle producers by sending out false information.
News WriterKatelyn Wray
FIRSTPERSON
ARMARILLO, TX – Paul comes up the driveway seeing his wife Virginia in the window. As he opens his car door he smells the aromas of his wife’s cooking. Walking inside he’s greeted with a kiss on the lips from his wife who is eager to tell him about her day.
She runs into the back room to show him a new book she bought today. Paul asks where she heard about the book…
“The Oprah Book Club!” She exclaims. “She said its one of her favorites!” Shrugging it off with a smile, they have dinner.
We come upon the same scene the following week. Mr. Engler walks into his home to find his wife with a new haircut! She quickly greets him with a kiss and returns to her magazine titled “O.” Later that evening as they are getting ready for bed she shows Paul all the new lotions and shampoos she’s read about on Oprah’s top list. With a “that’s nice dear…” he again shrugs the comment off and goes to sleep.
Agreeing with the Law of Consistency, Mr. Engler arrives home with an empty stomach awaiting a wonderful meal cooked by his wife. As he opens the door, walks across the kitchen to kiss his wife he leans in and is met with her cheek. Confused, but not wanting to jump to conclusions he asked how her day went… Then, as if they found themselves in a courtroom, she begins to interrogate him concerning how he ran his business, his integrity with the animals health and customer safety.
Wide-eyed, she unleashes a list of problems and illegal practices the beef industry as been doing and how she is considering not eating beef any more.
She takes a second to breathe, allowing Mr. Engler a chance to speak; “Where did you hear all of this?”
“Oprah.” she says triumphantly over crossed arms.
Reassuring his wife, while refuting the claims of the information, they continue their meal with uninterrupted silence. Occasionally exchanging glances across the table.
Retiring for the evening Paul enters the bedroom to find his wife still up reading her new book.
Commenting on how wonderful her new smelling lotion is, he reaches across the bed and kisses her good night. She acknowledges and turns the light out. Within five minutes of falling asleep, Paul is awakened to the sound of his beeper, shortly followed by his cell phone.
Evidently, Paul didn’t sleep much that night…
Human Interest WriterBen LeGrow
FIRSTPOINT
POINT: With a fanbase of more than 7.3 million, Oprah Winfrey’s opinion is being heard across the nation. Her voice has influence. When Oprah Winfrey and her guest, Howard Lyman, Director for the Humane Society’s “Eating with a Conscience” campaign, discussed the way in which Mad Cow Disease is becoming prevalent in part due to the way in which cows are disposed of and what the cows are eating, Oprah commented, “It has just stopped me from eating another burger.” Almost immediately after the airing of that show, cattle prices fell from 62 to 55 cents. Charges were made. The case rose through the courts. Now the Supreme Court has spoken regarding Engler et al. v. Lyman et al.; Oprah and her guest have been cleared of any charges of libel.
Still, some are dissatisfied and feel that someone with that kind of influence should watch what they say. Was it right for Oprah to voice her opinion when it could have a direct effect on the production of cattle ranchers throughout the world?
Oprah, or any other public figure, should always be free to express her strong opinions or to stand on certain issues. If she has earned the trust of so many by being so outspoken, let her influence the world around her—companies, organizations, or people can be positively influenced by her force.
The First Amendment very clearly states that yes, Oprah can and should speak. She has that right. By voicing her opinion, she did not engage in trade libel. She never pinpointed a specific cattle ranch or production line, she never had the intent to harm or decrease sales of cattle, and she never spoke a falsity. She highlighted a major national concern that was tested and proven as accurate, and although she interjected opinions on the type
How much influence should an opinion leader have?
Should a public figures like Oprah watch what they say?
of food she wished to stay away from, nothing could be proven in the court of law that she spoke an untruth. Precisely because Oprah Winfrey has such great influence, there is reason for her voice should be protected. What would have happened if opinion leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. had self-censored his thoughts because it would mean hurting a system that badly needed reform and attention? If we infringe on her ability to voice her opinions, we are risking infringement on her ability to make positive changes.
For example, in 1999, just a year after this case, Winfrey had a show revolving around child abuse, where she exposed many dark truths surrounding a horrendous act, even interviewing a survivor. She very clearly spoke her opinion of child abuse and very clearly mentioned she wanted to put an end to it. There was no public outcry and certainly no talk of trade libel from any child abusers. That’s an extreme comparison but both topics of beef industry practices and child abuse are items of social commentary, and we need people making social commentary. How can we do anything about it if we don’t know what the problem is? We should not pick and choose when she can speak, nor can we pick and choose when certain people might hear the words. Honest painful truth is better than not knowing.
The influence her voice carries might have the ability to cause damage, the good that can stem from such influence should carry a far greater weight. Let us view any hurt that Oprah caused by voicing her opinion as growing pains: helping us confront social issues and improve our society.
COUNTERPOINT: She is a woman whose word is worth billions: Oprah Winfrey has the Midas touch when it comes to plucking businesses out of obscurity and turning them into booming industries overnight.
But in April of 1996, Oprah filmed an episode exploring the hidden dangers in food, featuring comments from vegetarian activist Howard Lyman, who believed that “Mad Cow Disease” could cause an epidemic in America bigger than AIDS. On the show, Oprah also stated that she was “stopped cold from eating another burger.” That touch turned the beef market into lead, with prices sinking dramatically over the next few days.
Advocate WriterKayla Gilbert
Dr. Wayne D. Purcell, an expert in agricultural economics and livestock marketing, concluded “a significant and rather dramatic shock impacted the cash fed cattle market during [the week of] April 16, 1996.” Dr. Purcell went on to testify that the aftereffect of this shock was felt in the cash market through July 1996 and perhaps into the fall of 1996.
Does this kind of tremendous public response come as such a shock considering that the talk show host brings in more than seven and a half million daily viewers, forty-four million weekly viewers and holds one of the largest television demographics in the nation? With the strong influence that a public figure such as Oprah Winfrey has, what could be more unethical than arbitrarily choosing who will prosper under that touch and who will suffer?
Yes she has the right to free speech, but the public has the right to hear both sides of the story.
It’s horribly irresponsible and unethical that Oprah would use her super opinion leader power in making the beef industry out to be the villains. What chance did they have to defend or explain themselves before a nationwide audience as vast as Oprah’s?
The court even noted that, “when Ms. Winfrey speaks, America listens.” But they excused Oprah’s failure to sufficiently represent both sides because TV airtime is precious and there will always be cuts. Legally she might be without fault, but does that ethically justify $6.7 million dollars in lost revenue because a story wasn’t completely represented to a multimillion member audience?
I would hope that opinion leaders who achieve superstar status as Oprah has will exercise greater care in using that power to inspire change and improvement, but through fair and balanced communication.
What’s YOUR point?We want to hear from you! Join the discussion online at www.First.Magazine.org or on our facebook page: Facebook.com/FirstMag.
Advocate WriterBetsy Tracy
FIRSTTAKE
Note from the Editorial Board:The opinions represented here do not necessarily represent the official position of First Magazine.
Our writers share their thoughts on Engler et Al v. Lyman et Al.
In the Engler et al. v. Lyman et al. case, I couldn’t help but view the case with some dis-taste. Not a distaste for Oprah Winfrey and her guest. Nor is it a distaste for Engler either.
My worry isn’t over the fact that someone with such popularity and fame uses the First Amendment to their advantage: it’s the issue of how easily influenced society is. The bad taste in my mouth comes when I see how a large-part of society molds so easily to the opinions of one person, causing a ripple effect in the world, in this case costing millions of dollars in beef sales. Maybe next time it’s a boycott of a store, a new fashion trend, or a sudden change in popular belief.
This case leads me to wonder about the repercussions of what we’re letting into our minds, our hearts, and our homes. Are we easily influenced by the voices of those who we have put on pedestals without even realizing it?
The power of influence can be used in a highly positive way, and one inspiring message can cause a ripple effect that will serve to bring more light, or awareness, or good to the world. But in a case like this, when it was the force of an opinion that damaged the livelihood of a humble cattle rancher, it forces me to think twice about how quickly we are to follow someone—especially the footsteps of someone who doesn’t even know us by name.
I think that the ruling of this case was done right. The Cattle Ranchers did not have enough evidence to prove that Oprah and Lyman had defamed cattle producers. The evidence that was taken into the case did not meet the criteria of disparagement. I really believe that Oprah did not record the show with the intention to stop Americans from eating beef. If Oprah had done the show with the attention to ruin the beef industry, stated specific ranchers names, and given false information, then she would have lost the case and been charged the 6 million dollars.
I find it interesting to see the power that Oprah has. With the power she has I do feel like there does need to be a limit to what is said. But as stated in the New York Times vs. Sul-livan case, “Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate:. When someone has the power to influence millions of people it can be scary. We would hope that they influence for the good and sensor their own words.
Advocate WriterKayla Gilbert
News WriterKatelyn Wray
Should “Super Star status” be held under different rules for freedom of speech? Should she be held more accountable for her opinion than an average free speech citizen? After studying in depth the magnitude of Orpah’s impact on the general public I have developed my opinion that her voice takes away from a free market system.
Super Star status demands a higher ethical code. It demands more control of voiced opinions. As much as I believe in and support freedom of speech, we have to look at each case circumstantially and decide if it is affecting others ability or persuading them to use their freedom of speech to parallel someone like Oprah.
Each circumstance is different, especially between public and private institutions. The major question for us to decide is where is the line drawn? Does her opinion take away from free capitalism due to her opinion being shared by millions? Does she have the power to do a lot of good with her status? I believe those are all valid questions to be taken into consideration by those in authority to make a difference.
FIRSTTAKE
Note from the Editorial Board:The opinions represented here do not necessarily represent the official position of First Magazine.
I agree with ruling of the case: while Engler was individually affected by the case, he was not individually targeted. With a little bit more PR action and less legal action, Engel probably could have smoothed it over instead of dragging out an ugly court battle.
That said, my only regret is that Oprah and Harpo Entertainment cut out material that could have minimized the harm caused to Engler and other cattle ranchers while still alerting the public to this concern needing to be addressed. With a multimillion member audience, I find it a little reckless to only represent one side so thoroughly without chance of rebuttle.
And with that said, some harm is good: it generates change and stimulates improvement. We never saw the Mad Cow Disease concerns here in the United States that the United Kingdom and Europe did and perhaps Oprah had something to do with that.
EditorJames Valentine
Human Interest WriterBen LeGrow