"Yes," Marder said. "What can we do? Can we prevent them from
running the story?"
"No."
"Can we get a court injunction barring them?"
"No. That's prior restraint. And from a publicity standpoint,
it's ill advised."
"You mean it would look bad."
"An attempt to muzzle the press? Violate the First Amendment?
That would suggest you have something to hide."
"In other words," Marder said, "they can run the story, and we
are powerless to stop them."
"Yes."
"Okay. But I think Newsline's information is inaccurate and
biased. Can we demand they give equal time to our evidence?"
"No," Fuller said. "The fairness doctrine, which included the
equal-time provision, was scrapped under Reagan. Television news
programs are under no obligation to present all sides of an issue."
"So they can say anything they want? No matter how unbalanced?"
"That's right."
"That doesn't seem proper."
"It's the law," Fuller said, with a shrug.
"Okay," Marder said. "Now this program is going to air at a very
sensitive moment for our company. Adverse publicity may very well
cost us the China sale."
"Yes, it might."
"Suppose that we lost business as a result of their show. If we
can demonstrate that Newsline presented an erroneous view - and we
told them it was erroneous - can we sue them for damages?"
"As a practical matter, no. We would probably have to show they
proceeded with 'reckless disregard' for the facts known to them.
Historically, that has been extremely difficult to prove."
"So Newsline is not liable for damages?"
"No."
"They can say whatever they want, and if they put us out of
business, it's our tough luck?"
"That's correct."
"Is there any restraint at all on what they say?"
"Well." Fuller shifted in his chair. "If they falsely portrayed
the company, they might be liable. But in this instance, we have a
lawsuit brought by an attorney for a passenger on 545. So Newsline
is able to say they're just reporting the facts: that an attorney
made the following accusations about us."
"I understand," Marder said. "But a claim filed in a court has
limited publicity. Newsline is going to present these crazy claims
to forty million viewers. And at the same time, they'll
automatically validate the claims, simply by repeating them on
television. The damage to us comes from their exposure, not from the
original claims."
"I take your point," Fuller said. "But the law doesn't see it