Presiding Justice McMorrow, writing for the court, collecting cases and observing: Athe question of whether the common law fair report privilege can be forfeited upon a showing that the defendant acted either with common law >express malice= or constitutional law >actual malice,= where the news media has falsely defamed a public official, a public figure, or a private figure with respect to a matter of >public concern,= is apparently unsettled because of conflicting Illinois precedent@
How later courts described this case
- Presiding Justice McMorrow, writing for the court, collecting cases and observing: Athe question of whether the common law fair report privilege can be forfeited upon a showing that the defendant acted either with common law >express malice= or constitutional law >actual malice,= where the news media has falsely defamed a public official, a public figure, or a private figure with respect to a matter of >public concern,= is apparently unsettled because of conflicting Illinois precedent@
- Presiding Justice McMorrow, writing for the court, collecting cases and observing: "the question of whether the common law fair report privilege can be forfeited upon a showing that the defendant acted either with common law `express malice' or constitutional law `actual malice,' where the news media has falsely defamed a public official, a public figure, or a private figure with respect to a matter of `public concern,' is apparently unsettled because of conflicting Illinois precedent"
- insinuation that the plaintiff, a judge, was involved in payoffs and judicial corruption not reasonably subject to an innocent construction
- after considering factual allegations beyond those stated in the complaint, the appeals court reversed the order dismissing the defamation complaint
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Harte v. Chicago Council of Lawyers, 220 Ill. App. 3d 255 (1991)
Berkos v. National Broadcasting Co. (1987), 161 Ill. App. 3d 476, 515 N.E.2d 668, upon which plaintiff heavily relies, is distinguishable.
The opinion
JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting in part and concurring in part:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the dismissal of the libel and false-light claims.
In Chapski v. Cofley Press (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352 , 442 N.E.2d 195 , the court set forth the applicable standard and stated:
“We therefore hold that a written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted *** it cannot be actionable per se.”
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the program presented by Peter Karl “portrayfs] plaintiff as a person who participated in the acceptance of a bribe to influence the disposition of a case which had been heard by plaintiff.” I disagree. Rather, I believe the dominant feature in this case is that the facts which may have placed a taint on Berkos emanated, not from Peter Karl’s newscast, but instead, from the indictment returned in the United States District Court against Chicago police officer Ira Blackwood.
The indictment charges that Blackwood engaged in racketeering by “multiple acts involving bribery.” Further, the indictment charges that David V: Ries, an undercover FBI agent, gave Blackwood $4,400 to influence the disposition of 10 cases. The indictment names each case, the charge, the ultimate disposition of the case, the amount of money received by Blackwood from Ries and the date upon which it was paid. With regard to the context in which the indictment was read, the newscast did nothing more than explain the circumstances surrounding the indictment.
Specifically, the broadcast began by stating that the report stems from the Greylord investigation into judicial corruption in the circuit-court of Cook County. The Greylord investigation is a notorious fact known to everyone in the entire community. In the report the term “fix” is used colloquially to refer to bribery. Additionally, Karl named the judges who were involved in the disposition of the 10 cases identified in the indictment, information which was received from an investigator who checked the public records. In contrast to the majority’s opinion that these facts and the manner in which they were presented could not be innocently construed, it is evident to me that these facts simply emanate from the indictment against Blackwood and the surrounding circumstances, virtually all of which came from the indictment, and not from the newscast. Consequently, I believe the newscast can reasonably be innocently interpreted as a report of the charges against Blackwood which was properly placed in its context.
Moreover, although Karl had no duty to exonerate any of the judges who presided over the 10 cases at issue, the judges, including Berkos, were called and given an opportunity to comment. Karl further acted responsibly by specifically noting that there were no charges of wrongdoing against any of those judges.
For similar reasons, I would affirm the dismissal of any claim that the broadcast placed Berkos in a false light.