Why libel cases against mass media practitioners most often do not prosper after filing in court?

Question

Libelous cases are all over mass media -in radio programs, on the TV screens, in newspapers and magazine articles - but most often, nothing happened after libel cases have been filed or undergone preliminary hearings in court. Why?

Answer 1

Money...the cost is prohibitive and the media has lawyers on board 24/7, part of the cost of doing business.

Answer 2

For persons in the public eye there is a very high standard of proof to prevail in a libel case. According to the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan--in the case of alleged libel against persons in the public eye they must prove that the defendant made the statement knowing it was false or with actual malice.Actual malice means an utter disregard for the truth. This is very difficult to prove. All someone has to say is someone told them something and they believed they were a reliable source.

The other factor is money. It takes a lot to prosecute these. And even though personalties do have a lot--they probably don't wnt to bankroll a lot of things. The ambulance chasers do not take them on because the possibility of success is low.

Answer 3

The media enjoys a special protection that the rest of us don't share. To prevail, the plaintiff has to not only show that the statement was false and damaging, but also that they had a malicious intent when they published it. Just wanting to sell newspapers (the presumed motive) is not malicious.

Figuring out who made the call to publish is hard enough, to but to know what was in his mind is nearly impossible.

Answer 4

it is all money. it will cost you too much money to try to win and they have too much money to lose. you can thank your congressman because they really cant lose they are covered by the law due to the mass media act