columnists’ assessment of what political science profession thinks of plaintiff “implies the existence of facts inducing that conclusion * * * [with] little * * * factual predicate in the column in suit”
How later courts described this case
- columnists’ assessment of what political science profession thinks of plaintiff “implies the existence of facts inducing that conclusion * * * [with] little * * * factual predicate in the column in suit”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I differ substantially from Chief Judge Robinson’s analysis but do not oppose the remand to give the district court an opportunity to consider the points raised in his opinion. In my judgment the article, considered as a whole, is privileged opinion. It is well established that in evaluating the meaning of an allegedly defamatory statement its words are to be construed in their context and not in isolation. 1 In my opinion the content of the nationally syndicated article in this case should be judged in its entirety and not in disjointed fragments. Furthermore, I would give more consideration to the circumstances under which the statement was published. 2 On remand, the district court should keep these fundamental principles in mind in determining “whether the absolute privilege for opinion has been forfeited by culpable omissions or errors in the supporting facts which the [Evans and Novak] article offered its readers.” Opinion of Robinson, C.J., at 33.
If, as I suspect and as is customary, the article appeared on the opinion-editorial page, generally known in the trade as the op-ed page, that circumstance would be very relevant to the district court’s determination. Newspaper readers are likely to assume that articles appearing on the op-ed page, especially nationally syndicated editorial comments, in contrast to news articles which traditionally appear elsewhere in the newspaper, are intended to express specific opinions. It is also customary for the newspaper to limit the space available for syndicated columnists to express their editorial opinions. This requires that their views be presented in very condensed form. The primary focus of such articles is opinion and they are generally so understood. Under these circumstances, readers of the opinions of nationally syndicated columnists are less likely to be misled by the omission of some facts that persons named in such articles might consider to be necessary. I do not understand Chief Judge Robinson’s opinion to foreclose the district court’s consideration of such circumstances in assessing the availability of the privilege for opinion in this case. 3
. Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co., 639 F.2d 54, 60 (2d Cir.1980); Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe, 366 F.2d 649, 655 (D.C.Cir.1966) (en banc); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563 comment d (1977).
. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 285-86 , 94 S.Ct. 2770, 2782 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 13-14 , 90 S.Ct. 1537, 1541 , 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563 comment e (1977).
. Opinion of Robinson, C.J., at 17 n. 70.