592 S.W.3d 116
Tenn.2019Background
- On Jan. 30, 2014 The Expositor published an article reporting Jeffery Burke’s arrest and indictment for theft; the article quoted Detective Chris Isom, identified as lead investigator and public information officer (PIO), saying Burke “misappropriated” funds and the youth league did not receive cookie dough.
- Burke’s counsel immediately disputed the substance by email, asserting the product had been delivered and objecting to inaccuracies; the paper declined to correct anything other than the dollar amount from $16,000 to $11,000 based on the reporter’s source.
- Burke sued the publisher for defamation, alleging three factual errors (amount, nondelivery of cookie dough, failure to remit funds) and sought damages.
- Sparta Newspapers moved for summary judgment claiming the fair report privilege protected its republication of Isom’s statements made to the reporter, even though the exchange was a nonpublic one-on-one interview.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding a private one-on-one interview is not within Tennessee’s fair report privilege. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held the fair report privilege applies only to public proceedings or official government actions that have been made public and therefore does not protect reporting based on a nonpublic, one-on-one conversation; it affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fair report privilege covers a nonpublic one‑on‑one interview between a reporter and a sheriff’s detective/PIO | Burke: private interview not an official public action; statements went beyond public record | Sparta Newspapers: Isom acted as PIO; article fairly reported his official statements; privilege applies | Held: No. Privilege limited to public proceedings or official actions that have been made public; private one‑on‑one interview not covered |
| Whether the privilege is limited to proceedings/actions that have been made public | Burke: privilege must be tied to public, open proceedings | Sparta Newspapers: privilege should include official statements by government agents even if conveyed privately to media | Held: Limited to public proceedings or official actions that have been made public |
| Whether a showing of express (actual) malice can defeat the fair report privilege | Burke: argued publisher’s conduct (failure to investigate) showed malice | Sparta Newspapers: privilege should apply absent proof of falsity or unfairness | Held: Not dispositive here; Tennessee previously held express malice cannot defeat the privilege (Funk) |
| Whether press releases/press conferences or other PIO communications automatically qualify | Burke: context matters; routine PIO statements may not be official public actions | Sparta Newspapers: routine PIO communications often are official and public | Held: Court did not decide for press releases or press conferences; left open and emphasized context matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205 (Tenn. 2019) (adopted Restatement § 611 framework; held privilege applies to fair, accurate reports of official actions/proceedings and is not defeated by express malice)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (First Amendment actual‑malice standard for public‑official libel claims)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (constitutional protections for reporting on public officials and proceedings)
- Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (public interest in access to and reporting of official proceedings)
- Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P., 238 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (Tenn. Ct. App. precedent limiting privilege to public proceedings/official actions made public)
- Saunders v. Baxter, 53 Tenn. 369 (Tenn. 1871) (early Tennessee recognition of fair report privilege)
- Am. Publ’g Co. v. Gamble, 90 S.W. 1005 (Tenn. 1906) (privilege rationale: public’s right to know how officers perform duties)
- Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper, 424 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1980) (refused privilege for reports based on informal police–media hotlines)