Struggling to retain some accuracy while sacrificing the truth, the Daily Times seems to be quite pleased that Worcester County District Court Judge Gerald Purnell has ruled that Maryland's press shield law doesn't apply to blogger Joe Albero. When was the last time the paper covered a civil motions hearing?
Before we go farther we need to remember something. Yesterday's hearing in Snow Hill was simply a motions hearing. Salisbury Police Chief Allan Webster has yet to produce any evidence in court that Albero libeled him. Given that Webster has already been determined to be a public figure, his burden of proof is near impossible. IF Webster's case finally does come to trial this summer he must prove that Albero's statements were not true, that Albero knew that they were untrue AND that he still published the statements with malice. A tough nut to crack.
Back to the local barracks of the Gannett army. It is my understanding of Judge Purnell's ruling that Albero was found not to be protected by the press shield law because Albero is not paid. IF Albero had offered evidence of earning revenue from Salisbury News (which he actually was at the time Webster claims that he was libeled), it appears that the shield law would have applied. This really doesn't matter anyway because Judge Purnell ruled (based on another point) that Albero did not have to disclose the names of sources, which is the point of the press shield law.
Was this covered in Joe Gidjunis' article? No. Instead Mr. Gidjunis follows his lead about the shield law not applying with a statement that "Judge Gerald Purnell decided Albero must explain the steps he took to verify the accuracy of content that Webster claimed defamed him."
I have news for Gidjunis and his superiors at the Daily Times. If Mr. Gidjunis were sued for libel he would have to explain the steps that he took to verify the accuracy of his reporting, or face losing the case. Does anyone question whether the press shield law applies to Mr. Gidjunis? Of course not. It just suits the Daily Times' agenda to compare apples to oranges.
I can only hope that the Daily Times will provide such prominent coverage to the actual trial. It would also serve the public interest for them to inquire into who is actually paying the legal bills for this little charade. If Webster can afford to expend tens of thousands of dollars to go after Albero, perhaps the taxpayers of Salisbury are paying him too much. If the taxpayers are footing the bill (without any appropriation for the funds) then some people deserve to go to jail. Oh, who am I kidding!
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Disclosure - G. A. Harrison is a contributor to Salisbury News as well as several other online publications.
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Salisbury politics, media, blogging, Gannett, Daily Times, courts, legal, press shield, Joe Albero, Allan Webster
Before we go farther we need to remember something. Yesterday's hearing in Snow Hill was simply a motions hearing. Salisbury Police Chief Allan Webster has yet to produce any evidence in court that Albero libeled him. Given that Webster has already been determined to be a public figure, his burden of proof is near impossible. IF Webster's case finally does come to trial this summer he must prove that Albero's statements were not true, that Albero knew that they were untrue AND that he still published the statements with malice. A tough nut to crack.
Back to the local barracks of the Gannett army. It is my understanding of Judge Purnell's ruling that Albero was found not to be protected by the press shield law because Albero is not paid. IF Albero had offered evidence of earning revenue from Salisbury News (which he actually was at the time Webster claims that he was libeled), it appears that the shield law would have applied. This really doesn't matter anyway because Judge Purnell ruled (based on another point) that Albero did not have to disclose the names of sources, which is the point of the press shield law.
Was this covered in Joe Gidjunis' article? No. Instead Mr. Gidjunis follows his lead about the shield law not applying with a statement that "Judge Gerald Purnell decided Albero must explain the steps he took to verify the accuracy of content that Webster claimed defamed him."
I have news for Gidjunis and his superiors at the Daily Times. If Mr. Gidjunis were sued for libel he would have to explain the steps that he took to verify the accuracy of his reporting, or face losing the case. Does anyone question whether the press shield law applies to Mr. Gidjunis? Of course not. It just suits the Daily Times' agenda to compare apples to oranges.
I can only hope that the Daily Times will provide such prominent coverage to the actual trial. It would also serve the public interest for them to inquire into who is actually paying the legal bills for this little charade. If Webster can afford to expend tens of thousands of dollars to go after Albero, perhaps the taxpayers of Salisbury are paying him too much. If the taxpayers are footing the bill (without any appropriation for the funds) then some people deserve to go to jail. Oh, who am I kidding!
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Disclosure - G. A. Harrison is a contributor to Salisbury News as well as several other online publications.
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Salisbury politics, media, blogging, Gannett, Daily Times, courts, legal, press shield, Joe Albero, Allan Webster
16 comments:
Webster had his feelings hurt , so what! The truth hurts sometimes.
His case is a waste of time and money.Wonder who is paying his legal fees?
My textbook on elementary business law informed us that PUBLIC figures have ready access to the media to refute any statements deemed offensive or slanderous.Therefore the shield applies.
Sounds like legal hair splitting but if Webster wins they'll have to rewrite many textbooks. Some lawyers don't mind taking your money.
Bob P
Well,when you own a sweet-ass McMansion on Colbourne Creek in Somerset county(anywhere from 300k and up) you have got to be getting money from somewhere.And if Chief is reading-don't bother suing Totmom cuz other than a wheezing 14 yr old minivan and a few pieces of jewelry...I am flush and own nothing else outright.LOL
BTW totally off subject but I had a question for Bob P.Are you related to Joe P.(same last name)?He is a helluva nice guy and you don't hear that last name too often.
HEY ST. JOE,
SHUT UP ALREADY. YOU ARE A NOSEY, NO GOOD, NEGITIVE, COMPLAINER AND WHINER. YOU REMIND ME OF FORMER BALTIMORE SUN PRO WHINER MICHEL OLESKER, BUT WITH LESS CLASS.
WHY DON'T YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND MOVE TO SALISBURY AND RUN FOR OFFICE. AS I OFTEN READ IN YOUR BLOG...ARE YOU A "PUSSY"? WHY NOT SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF BEING NEGITIVE? OH THATS RIGHT... THATS NOT WHAT PUSSYS DO..
SIGNED JD
Dear JD -
Before you start calling people names you should at least look at who you are screaming at. Joe did not write this piece, I did.
If you were a tad more literate you not only would have seen who actually wrote the post that you have such a problem with, but you would also know that I often do offer solutions. You may not like them, but you couldn't say that I haven't offered any.
Like many of your unfortunate kind you seem to take the attitude that to bring malfeasance or misbehavior to light is a bad thing because it's people that you happen to like that are misbehaving. This personifies what is wrong with America today!
You should answer a few questions yourself:
Do you believe that it is OK for a Mayor to spend tax money without an appropriation from the city council?
Do you believe that the taxpayers should have to pay for the incompetence of a local government?
Do you believe that landlords should be regulated by landlords?
If so, you are certainly entitle to your opinion (no matter how ill conceived). If not, what are you complaining about? The "negativity" you are screeching about is USUALLY malfeasance, misbehavior or misadventure that DESERVES to come to the public's attention.
JD,
Don't mean to get all "negitive" on you, but go to school and learn how to spell. And turn off your caps lock. Thanks,
FF
Has it gone unnoticed that most of the idiots who spout off and use bad language, grammar, and punctuation are those against Joe?
Maybe the anti-SBYNEWS.com movement is for the uneducated.
Good set of questions GA! I sure would like to know who or what is paying for this case against Joe and also the one brought forth by the Mayor. You sure nailed that no account journalist (?) from the Disgarce! What a bunch of clowns at that paper. They wouldn't know a good story or a true one, if it fell in their laps at the Disgrace office.
A. Goetz
Harrison:
"Judge Purnell ruled (based on another point) that Albero did not have to disclose the names of sources, which is the point of the press shield law. Was this covered in Joe Gidjunis' article? No."
Third paragraph of Joe Gidjunis' article:
"The judge, however, upheld that Albero does not have to reveal the source of a contested letter Albero posted on his blog, which allegedly defamed the top Salisbury officer last spring."
Harrison didn't read too far down in the story.
JD = Just Dull.
Joe,
Keep doing what you’re doing, you do a great JOB, Webster is just trying to hide behind a lawsuit, like that’s going to erase everything. Money does not buy or hide the truth. I say the Shield applies.
To JD, you are screaming at GA not JOE, ha-ha. By any chance would you happen to be the Chief? LOL
Great Job GA, I wouldn't worry about the Chief, screaming at you, this person is on an attack mode. LOL
OK Folks no matter which way you look at it this case in some way or another it is costing the taxpayer . It makes no difference who appears to be paying for it up front here and now it is still going to cost the tax payer in the long run . Lets face it what you have here is a spoiled rotten city boy that has come to the shore to run a police force . Problem is he is used to getting his own way and he ran into a block wall when Joe wouldn't back down from him . It all boils down to the chief got his toes stepped on and was not man enough to walk away from it instead he had to bring his city sue-em attitude into his shame !
I gave him the name Chief Jack and Coke, not Joe.
No, I gave him the name Chief Jack n Coke
To Anon4:42 -
I apologize that I wasn't clear enough for you. The DT did not state the reason(s) why the shield law didn't apply. That is what wasn't covered.
I thought that Joe Gidjunis was fairly clear about the ruling that Albero wouldn't have to disclose his sources.
Post a Comment