Anderson v. the Augusta Chronicle

46I days, representing days of respondent’s origi- suspension plus days. nal days Within fifteen the date of opinion, respondent this shall file affidavit with the Clerk showing complied 30, RLDE, Court that he has with Rule Rule SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

585 S.E.2d 506 ANDERSON, Appellant, Tom CHRONICLE, Communications, THE AUGUSTA Morris

Inc., Respondents.

No. 3597. Appeals

Court of of South Carolina. 9,May

Heard 2001.

Decided 2003. Feb.

Certiorari Granted Oct. Harte, Aiken, Appellant. for W. John Hudson, Aiken; Augusta, Holly, of and David M. James Respondents. for

SHULER, J.: action, a directed appeals Tom Anderson

In this defamation Morris and Commu- Augusta in favor of The verdict Chronicle”). nications, “The We reverse (collectively Inc. trial. for a new remand HISTORY

FACTS/PROCEDURAL unsuccessfully for a seat In Tom Anderson ran During the cam- Representatives. Carolina House South Carolina; hit coast of North paign, two hurricanes disasters, Anderson, in natural adjuster specializing a claims claims. As a insurance process to North Carolina traveled result, of the state for ten weeks Anderson was out election season. redistricting, prepared year, following

The next for the same House seat. Chad again special run in a election Chronicle, Anderson twice to phoned Bray, reporter April The Chroni- campaign. On previous discuss the by Bray cle concerning special article election stating part: relevant Demoсrats hope Clybum— The best than Mr. [sic] —other

may be Tom expected Anderson. He’s seek rematch Smith, against Rep. R-Langley, state Roland Mr. Brown said.

Mr. percent Anderson took 32 in of the vote District 84 against when he ran Mr. in though Smith even he was out of the area with National during Guard the final weeks the election. point thereafter,

At some Anderson announced his candida- cy again spoke with Bray by phone. According to Anderson, subject of his during absence 1996 cam- paign up did not come call. during the On June The Chronicle another Bray special article about the In pertinent part, election. the article stated: Anderson, Mr. property Bath appraiser, said he felt being away cheated after duty called for National Guard the last month general before the 1996 Mr. election. Smith eventually won with 67 percent of to Mr. the vote percent. Anderson’s 33

Anderson, who Bray asserts he never told with he worked Guard, National did not contact following publi- The Chronicle cation of request either article to a retraction or correction. following September, Boyette,

The The John Chronicle’s Chief, Aiken Bureau сontacted Anderson and asked if he was planning to “prov- withdraw since had race he been a liar stating working en” for he was for the National Guard in Boyette Bray Anderson told must have misunderstood when he said he had worked for National Flood Insurance (NFIP), Program adjuster program operated insurance auspices under the Emergency of the Federal Management (FEMA). Agency article, The Chronicle published Boyette’s race,” headlined “GOP wants Anderson out of House September 18. The subheading read: “Clearwater Democrat- ic lying candidate accused of about his National Guard in part: service.” This article stated The South Republican Party Carolina called for Tom drop Anderson to out of House District 84 race Wednes- Democrat about day, lied charging Clearwater National Guard. service in the has no of Mr. National record The South Carolina Guard Walker, serving, Trey state GOP Anderson’s ever said statement, In a said director. faxed Mr. Walker executive discharge immediately dishonorably Mr. “should Anderson himself race.” from the Augusta reported June that Mr. National being away

said he after callеd felt cheated general last the 1996 duty Guard in the month before election .... however, Anderson, Wednesday that he ever

Mr. denied told had served in the National The Chronicle he Instead, said, more than two months spent Guard. he he doing National damage appraisals North for the Carolina coast. Group Flood two hurricanes hit the Insurance after fall, to assist Last National Guard units were called on victims Fran in North of Hurricane eastern Carolina. Army, in the Mr. was drafted into the served Anderson and, two-year Europe, Korean after a stint in was War discharged in 1956. in day, appeared The an article the Aiken Standard same ” headline, responds

with the “Democrat to ‘misinformation.’ article, by This recorded Langley, senior writer Carl and allegations of The Anderson’s denunciation Chronicle’s Guard, in quoted saying: him as “I’ve never been the National and would a fool have been to make such statement.” article continued: campaign by

Anderson several of the last missed weeks working generated on insurance claims from Hurricane Fran in North Carolina. gone during campaign,

“I was on two occasions the 1996 and (claims) lot insurance we worked on involved the Program,” National Flood Insurance said Anderson. speculated Augusta newspaper He that the for an reporter insur- couldn’t the difference the national flood tell between ance program the National Guard.

Anderson told reporter said he that during the last go July election he had to to North Carolina in again in September and October work on the insurance claims. local papers Other also concerning articles controversy. September

On telephone Anderson received a call from Pat Willis. Willis told Anderson she was working on an article for The requested proof Chronicle and that he was a government-approved adjuster insurance and that he had worked in North Carolina subsequently documents, faxed including Willis several on letter FEMA/ stationery approving NFIP application his for NFIP certified adjuster status.

lished Despite editorial with the headline “Let the liar run.” Writ- this information, October The Chronicle pub- Kent, by ten Phil editor, The Chronicle’s page editorial piece in full: stated Anderson,

Clearwater Democrat Tom running Novem- ber’s special cоurt-ordered election for South ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍Carolina’s seat, District 84 exposed House has been aas liar. told newspaper

He this he away was called to National duty election, Guard last weeks of the 1996 his first against Smith, Rep. race incumbent state R-Lang- Roland (Anderson ley. lost margin.) decisive out, however, It turns the state has no Guard record serving any Anderson ever or then other time. —either Trey Walker, State saying GOP director Anderson has Guard, dishonored himself and the National demands that- the Democrat withdraw from right the race. Walker’s dishonor, about the but what about the withdrawal? with,

If Anderson is up the best Democrats can they come every right still have to run nothing him. There’s in the says political party election rules that can’t nominate for public who, effect, in office candidate on lies his resume. We are confident that an informed won’t electorate vote into proven prevaricator. all, office a After he doesn’t even have long the robes of one of A1 Buddhist to Gore’s monks hide behind! following publication, Anderson tried to reach morning

The a retraction or clarification. After several Kent to demand with nаmed attempts, eventually spoke a woman Anderson in Tara informed department.1 Tara The editorial Chronicle’s him, if “wouldn’t talk” to but stated Anderson that Kent be In the printed. Anderson faxed a rebuttal letter would meantime, Party copies mailed Republican officials to editorial district voters. on subsequently printed

The Chronicle “Clarification” 29: October Anderson, year’s special candidate in

Tom Democratic this seat, House District 84 said election for the South Carolina away just area the 1996 he was called from the Aiken before Insur- post for the to work for the National Flood election misquoted in Program. ance Mr. Anderson also said he was story Augusta The Chronicle. [the] June paper response as a Letter published The also Anderson’s 2. the on November Editor ultimately libel, complaint filed a amended state- alleging

March Chronicle false 1, At a trial ments editorial dated October Kent’s 11, 1999, The moved for a directed held October orally close of case. The trial court verdict Anderson’s granted finding Anderson failed the motion October malice, show constitutional and thereafter a form ordеr filed judgment. appeal This followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS of Review Standard verdict, deciding a motion for a When directed all trial court infer “must view evidence reasonable light non-moving party.” most to the ences favorable Credit, ACA, Farm 334 S.C. Nursery Swinton Creek Edisto (1999); Evening see Bell v. Post 514 S.E.2d Co., Pub. If the (Ct.App.1995). 318 S.C. S.E.2d presented yields only one such inference law, court trial decide issue as matter of Swinton, motion 334 S.C. grant proper. decision 1. Tara Harbin is Phil Kent's assistant at The Chronicle.

471 hand, other a directed 476, at 130. On the at 514 S.E.2d denied where liability properly for libel motion on verdict jury. submitting the issue to the justifying evidence exists Inc., 502, 332 S.C. Newspapers, v. Thomson See Holtzscheiter (1998). 497, 513, 503 506 S.E.2d sufficient plaintiff presented has evidence

Whether instance, is, a question first to constitute actual malice 341 Gaffney Ledger, Elder v. of law for the trial court. See (2000); 108, Liberty Lobby, Anderson v. 533 S.E.2d 899 S.C. (1986) Inc., 242, 254, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 477 106 S.Ct. (“Wlien ... a libel suit determining if actual malice exists judge a trial must bear in mind the by public figure, brought support quality proof necessary and of quantum actual Times.”); Bose v. Consumers liability Corp. under New York Union, 502 104 80 L.Ed.2d 466 U.S. S.Ct. (1984) Constitution, must inde (“Judges, expositors in the record is suffi pendently whether the evidence decide entry that bars the to cross the сonstitutional threshold cient by convincing and supported that is not clear any judgment ”). Similarly, court is appellate proof of ‘actual malice.’ appeal record on examine the entire obliged independently novo, below is decide, presented evidence and de whether the finding character to sustain quantity of sufficient and Elder, 113-114, at at 533 S.E.2d actual malice. See S.C. Columbia, 224, 471 902; 322 S.C. S.E.2d City Miller v. West Bose, (1996); at also 466 U.S. see judgment independent ... must (“Appellate judges exercise actual record establishes [entire] and determine whether the court must clarity.”). In all cases the convincing malice with support could the record ask “whether the plaintiff has shown jury finding either reasonable convincing evidence or actual malice clear Anderson, 255-56, plaintiff has not.”

Discussion injury to redress The tort of defamation exists publication arising from the defendant’s plaintiffs reputation Holtzscheiter, defamatory statement. See of a false 501; Swinton, S.C. S.C. at 506 S.E.2d to show requires plaintiff tort at 133. Proof of the S.E.2d publishing was at fault in a false and defamato- the defendant party him a third ry concerning statement to either irrespective of special caused him harm or was actionable Rose, 488, 857 Fleming harm. v. 350 S.C. 567 S.E.2d See (2002) Inc., ; 571, Boone v. 347 S.C. 556 Newspapers, Sunbelt (Ct.App.2001). 732 S.E.2d substantively is a matter of

Although defamation law, “may reshape our common the federal state Constitution to landscape the common-law to conform the First Amend Hepps, Inc. v. 475 Philadelphia Newspapers, ment.” U.S. (1986). Thus, 767, 775, 1558, a 106 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 783 when figure by speech public official2claims defamation of public or concern, him requires the “to surmount a much Constitution higher recovering damages a barrier before from media defen Id.; by dant than is raised the common law.” see Beckham v. News, (1986) (“[I]n 603, 289 344 604 Sun S.C. S.E.2d brought by public public figures libel actions officials and the necessarily by proof traditional burdens of are altered the press.”). Part of this protections constitutional afforded the “higher degree by publisher is of fault barrier” the the Lando, 153, Herbert v. 441 plaintiff prove. the must U.S. (1979) (“[S]ome 1635, 171-72, 99 60 L.Ed.2d 115 is S.Ct. error inevitable; and of fact from fiction separating the difficulties liability ... to limit to where convinced the Court instances degree culpability present some is order to eliminate the self-censorship suppression risk of of truthful undue mаterial.”); 488, 857; Fleming, see also 350 567 S.C. S.E.2d Beckham, 30, at 344 at 289 S.C. S.E.2d 604. Sullivan, 254,

New v. 376 84 York Times Co. (1964) 710, progeny prescribe 11 L.Ed.2d 686 and its S.Ct. requisite public fault proved figure. to be Under this standard, plaintiff allegedly must show an libelous state See, figure public purposes. 2. Anderson concedes he is for defamation 271, 621, 265, e.g., Roy, Patriot Co. v. 28 Monitor (1971) ("[I]t categorize might preferable L.Ed.2d 35 be candidate figure,' straining ‘public as a if for no other reason than to avoid meaning question importance of no common of words. But is so liability ... .... [New far as the standard of is concerned That York candidates, spite apply itself intended to of the use of Times] was terminology, readily apparent 'public the more restricted official’ omitted). law.”) (footnote opinion’s from that text and citations to case 279-280, Id. with “actual malice.” at was ment Fabri, 440, 710; 548 S.E.2d George see v. S.C. (2001); Elder, 113, at Proof of at 341 S.C. S.E.2d demonstrate, by clear requires the plaintiff actual malice evidence, publisher that the made state convincing for their disregard or with reckless knowingly either ments 876; 548 S.E.2d falsity. George, truth or S.C. Elder, and convinc at 902. Clear 341 S.C. 533 S.E.2d “ which degree proof ‘that ing be defined a firm as to in mind of of facts beliеf produce will the trier ” sought Spartan to be Peeler allegations established.’ Inc., 269 n. 478 S.E.2d Radiocasting, 324 S.C. (citation omitted). (1996) It is an intermediate measure n. “ i.e., but less than is preponderance ‘more than a mere proof, doubt; not it does required proof beyond reasonable ” Id. unequivocal.’ mean clear and which the subjective Actual is “a standard tests malice faith belief in the truth of statements.” good [its] defendant’s Peeler, 876; 456, 324 345 at 548 at see S.C. George, S.C. S.E.2d Hence, 266, knowing of a proof at 478 at 284. absent S.E.2d “ falsehood, ‘in fact plaintiff must establish a defendant ” publication’ truth of his doubts as to the entertained serious ” “ probable of of ‘high degree awareness’ possessed or (citations 456, at 548 at 876 falsity. 345 S.C. S.E.2d George, Holtzscheiter, 512-13, omitted); at 332 at 506 S.E.2d see S.C. showing requires actual malice (proving 503 constitutional was false” or the statement publisher that the either “realized truth”). its Recklessness about “had serious reservations of from the standards departure “an extreme presupposes by responsi reporting ordinarily adhered to investigation and Peeler, 266, at 478 at 284. 324 S.C. S.E.2d publishers.” ble “ qualifica question, ‘public discussion Without probа what is presents of a candidate for elective office tions New York application of the strongest possible case for bly the ” 454, 548 at 875 George, 345 S.C. S.E.2d Times rule.’ Communications, Connaugh Inc. v. Harte-Hanks (quoting (1989)); 2678, ton, 657, 686, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 491 U.S. 265, 271-72, 91 401 S.Ct. Roy, Patriot v. see Monitor Co. (“[If] (1971) was Amendment 621, 35 the First 28 L.Ed.2d for interchange ideas to assure the unfettered ‘fashioned changes bringing political about of and social desired hardly constitu people,’ then it can be doubted guarantee urgent application tional has its fullest and most office.”) precisely campaigns political to the conduct of (internal omitted). Indeed, actual malice standard citation national to the premised ‘profound “is on our commitment uninhibited, principle public issues should be debate vehement, robust, wide-open, and that it well include caustic, sharp govern attacks on unpleasantly sometimes 456-57, public George, ment and officials.’ 345 S.C. ” Times, (quoting at 876 New York 376 U.S. at S.E.2d 710). S.Ct. Amendment, however,

The First does not afford immunity. id. at defamatory political speech absolute 876; Co., Publ'g S.E.2d Stevens Sun S.C. (“An (1978) a public 240 S.E.2d individual’s status as figure liability not it publisher does immunize when malice.”); prints defamatory articlеs with Harte-Hanks Com munications, Connaughton, Inc. v. (1989) (“We 2678, 105 not so far gone L.Ed.2d have immunity coverage

... to accord in its press absolute elections.”). public figures Supreme or As the Court has stated: speech political

That is used as a tool for ends does not automatically bring protective under the mantle Constitution. ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍For the use of the known lie as tool is at premises government at odds with of democratic once economic, social, orderly and in with the manner which or political change is to be Calculated falsehood falls effected. part into that class of utterances which “are no essential of ” any .... exposition knowingly of ideas Hence the false and with statement the false statement made reckless disre- gard enjoy protection. of the do not constitutional truth[] Louisiana, 64, 75, 209, 379 85 13 Garrison U.S. S.Ct. (1964) (citation omitted); Publ'g L.Ed.2d 125 see Curtis Co. v. (1967) Butts, 150, 1975, 130, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 388 U.S. (“[T]hat opinion questions dissemination of information and ordinarily a and public legitimate, protected of concern is activity may not ... in indeed cherished does mean one

475 respects carry activity exempt all on that from sanctions others.”). designed safeguаrd legitimate to the of interests basis of trial The sole court’s decision to direct verdict favor, in only question The Chronicle’s before this Court, presented is whether Anderson to sufficient evidence a jury question create on the constitutional malice element purposes opinion defamation. We therefore assume for of this that The “Let the liar run” and that it and defamatory contained false statements. See George, (“Because 7, summary S.C. 456 n. 548 S.E.2d at 876 n. 7 malice, judgment granted solely was on the of actual issue we arguendo assume that the statements were false and defama Moreover, tory.”). determinations, “[cjredibility since evidence, weighing drawing legitimate and the infer functions, jury judge, ences the facts are not of a those ruling summary is on a motion for judgment whether he or for verdict,” a directed presented.by Anderson “is to believed, justifiable be and all in inferences are be drawn Inc., his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 255, 106 (1986); S.Ct. L.Ed.2d see Masson v. New Inc., 496, 520, Magazine, Yorker (1991) (“[W]e L.Ed.2d 447 all justifiable must draw inferences in favor of nonmoving party, including questions of credi evidence.”). bility weight particular to be accorded matter, an important As initial it is tо recognize presumptively defamatory false and statements contained liar run” separate ways. “Let the constitute libel in two First, the statement Anderson “told this newspaper he away duty was called National the last weeks of Guard injury by the 1996 could attributing election” cause Masson, statement of fact he did not make. See (“A quotation may S.Ct. 2419 fabricated injure reputation ... giv[e] [and] rise to conceivable claim of ... defamation because it attributes untrue factual asser Wilkerson, speaker.”); tion to the White v. 328 S.C. (1997) defamatory (holding

493 S.E.2d a statement is ... convey “if the words used to the minds of to whom those ... they impression plaintiff are addressed that the has wrong” done when considered the context of the entire (internal omitted). publication) citation Such statement is defamatory quod, defamatory meaning because its per itself, in this case facts to the statement extrinsic

derived claims. what the editorial that he ever said denial Anderson’s (“If at 501 Holtzscheiter, 506 S.E.2d 332 S.C. facts the hearer knows not clear unless defamatory meaning is itself, then in statement contained circumstances not or defamatory per quod.”). statement is as exposed “has been Second, that Anderson the statements effectively on his and “lies liar,” prevaricator,” “proven is a defamatory being right in their own are actionable resume” (“The defamatory 508-09, 506 S.E.2d id. at per se. See on the obvious message or statement be meaning of a statement, is defamato- in which case the statement face and se.”). potential libel Thus, must look to each ry we per permit to presented if sufficient Anderson determine jury could have found Chroni- a reasonable us to conclude statements. publishing in with actual malice cle acted Anderson, the evidence light most favorable Viewed following. reveals the Bray anyone at The told or denies he ever Chad

Anderson general during the 1996 that he left his district Guard, presume must National and we in the election to serve 520-21, Masson, his denial is correct. See (“[W]e ... is correct petitioner assume must .... to him attributed that he made the statements denying only a trial on allegations, petitioner’s contests [Author] Instead, dispute.”). factual will resolve the the merits spring in the telephone that in a interview asserts working for out of the area Bray told he had been he Bray, apрeared who When companies. various insurance him industry, asked property insurance unfamiliar with the one, and to name company does property what describe several, the National Flood including Anderson recounted Anderson, Bray confused According to Program. Insurance National Guard. National Flood with the this reference and the National mentions of Anderson After two brief June, April by Bray previous in articles written Guard Boyette tele- The Chronicle’s John September to withdraw planning if he was inquired Anderson and phoned being had lied about race because he special from the election gave Boyette contends he National Guard. Anderson i.e., time, “the facts” at this working that he had been for companies Carolina, various insurance in North not the Na- Guard, tional and we assume Anderson’s version of this tele- phone conversation is id. accurate. See disavowal,

Despite express Boyette Anderson’s authored the September 18 in repeated article which he National Guard along statement with Anderson’s explanation denial and for absence, Chronicle, his and The оbviously now of aware denial, published Kent’s editorial on Although October 1.3 The subsequently printed “Clarification” Editor, Anderson’s Letter to the paper never retracted its assertion that Anderson had claimed to be in the National Guard or its conclusion that a liar. he was Supreme

The has that Court held the “deliberate alteration by of the words a plaintiff equate uttered does not with knowledge falsity malice], of purposes for of [actual unless the change alteration results in a material meaning con- Masson, veyed by the statement.” 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. (internal omitted). Anderson, however, citations does Bray not intentionally contend altered his statement concern- Instead, ing argues National Flood. Anderson he carried his on by showing burden actual malice The Chronicle knew of the alleged inaccuracy and to ignore chose it. record,

In conducting independent our examination of the we on concentrate evidence of The Chronicle’s “conduct and Herbert, 1635; state of mind.” at U.S. 99 S.Ct. see Butts, (“[New 152-53, U.S. 87 S.Ct. 1975 York Times] makes clear ... publisher neither the interests nor society necessarily preclude damage those award based improper publication. conduct which creates false It is the editorial, Although The Chronicle concedes Phil Kent authored the argues “presented Anderson no evidence on who wrote the editorial or responsibility publication ... who had of the editorial.” This admission, only by contention is belied not The Chronicle's but also testimony Anderson’s trial and a letter from Kent to Anderson's son re-direct, response question concerning Mark. On to a who was [editorial],” "responsible replied, for the creation of the “Phil addition, letter, Augusta Kent and The Chronicle." In on Chronicle stationery listing "Philip Page Kent” as the "Editorial Editor” and objection, admitted into evidence without includes his statement "[m]y responsibility solely opinion pages, including for the letters the editor.” focus therefore, principally must element, on which we

conduct subjective nature recognizes the law of libel prove. very difficult be defendant’s intent a media proving aware rarely successful “will be plaintiff Because himself,” mouth of the defendant from the of falsehood ness to the defendant’s evidence relevant any or indirect direct mаlice. actual to demonstrate mind is admissible state of Harte-Hanks, 1635; see Herbert, 99 S.Ct. (“[A] prove plaintiff is entitled circumstantial evidence through mind state of the defendant’s Newspa ....”) (internal omitted); Zerangue TSP citations (1987) Inc., (“Although the defen F.2d pers, fact, it can be shown subjective is a of mind dant’s state evidence.”). Moreover, since “[t]he or circumstantial indirect was publication the must determine whether finder of fact compe of faith,” plaintiffs presentation a good in indeed made actual may faith establish of bad circumstantial evidence tent was made publication claim that a despite a defendant’s malice St. Amant statements were true.” a that the “with belief 732, 1323, L.Ed.2d 262 727, 20 88 S.Ct. 390 U.S. Thompson, Press, Inc., 91 Square (1968); McFarlane v. Sheridan see to an is “entitled 1501, (recognizing plaintiff a 1510 F.3d malice); Tavou of actual of evidence aggregate consideration” 762, 39, F.2d 789 Piro, 817 U.S.App.D.C. 260 lareas v. (D.C.Cir.1987) (“[A] sub may prove the defendant’s plaintiff of circumstantial through mind the cumulation jective state of (stating sufficient evidence.”); 814 F.2d at 1070 Zerangue, negate a defendant’s actual malice can evidence of indirect faith). good assertion that he acted fully “cannot a of art that be disregard” is term “Reckless Amant, 390 U.S. St. in one infallible definition.” encompassed contrary, recklessness 730, To the 88 at S.Ct. Id.; see Harte- as case law evolves. is formed standard 686, (“[O]nly through the Hanks, 2678 491 at 109 S.Ct. U.S. to give can content case-by-case adjudication we of course ' standards.”). Hence, otherwise elusive constitutional these Times, plaintiffs case New York where the beginning with to show that “the record failed unsuccessful because was circulating that he was of the likelihood was aware publisher 1323, Amant, 731, information,” 88 S.Ct. St. false standard’s continually has refined the Supreme Court courts in guide the state and lower federal parameters on actual malice. making independent determinations investigate not in does Although publisher’s “[f]ailure faith,” bad id. at 88 S.Ct. the Court itself establish might recklessness be has articulated several instances where obvious reasons to of these is “where there are shown. One accuracy informant or the his veracity doubt the of [an] of 732-33, Amant, 88 S.Ct. reports.” St. U.S. Herbert, added); see 441 U.S. at (emphasis “ may ‘subjective probable find awareness of (stating court “ ” veracity to doubt the falsity5 if ‘there are obvious reasons ”) (citations accuracy reports.’ his informant or the Harte-Hanks, omitted);

(same). Amant; Herbert, recognize opinions St.

While we source, referring publisher’s Harte-Hanks were outside why analysis apply no would not legitimate we see reason newspaper’s reporter, particularly to a own equal with force misunderstanding points to a mistake or when the evidence fact, In subject. and his interview reporter between the Supreme from the considering the Masson case remand Court, Appeals the Ninth Circuit Court of so held. (9th Inc., Yorker 960 F.2d Magazine, Masson v. New Cir.1992) actual (stating proof publisher’s direct where infer missing, jury of mind is nevertheless state “gave which falsity if it finds circumstances awareness of ” “accuracy to of facts ‘obvious reasons doubt’ the publisher publisher and in an author’s article the “failed quotations” doubts”); see also steps dispel to those to take reasonable (8th Inc., F.2d Ottaway Newspapers, Speer Cir.1987) but (treating reporter supplied who false information defamatory into editorial as “outside source” input had no newspa on the of actual determination based purposes malice recklessness). court has Similarly, supreme our per’s alleged the defen present that “actual malice be where declared are obvious reasons to investigate dant fails to and there George, of statement or informant.” veracity doubt the the (additional added); emphasis at 878 548 S.E.2d S.C. (“[C]ourts upheld find 814 F.2d at 1070 have Zerangue, see a investigate a failed to ings of actual malice when defendant contrary informat story by apparently ... reliable weakened ion.”).4 view, amply In our the facts of this case demonstrate of National Guard “obvious reasons to doubt” the truth reported by Bray. statement begin, unquestionably

To The Chronicle knew Anderson conversation,5 Bray’s pub of as it had disputed version their than Boyette’s containing express article denial less lished Indeed, liar run.” The Chronicle’s two weeks before “Let the respon argument before the trial court and now as primary cannot show actual malice because dent is that Anderson Kent, editor, Bray than simply chose believe rather a supra, But unlike this was not case of Speer, Anderson. accurately conflicting ac publisher’s guess among failurе to In court found no perceived Speer, counts of a event. convincing newspa of actual malice when a clear and evidence information that had been per investigate reporter’s failed to “already staff disputed by others because the editorial knew eyewitnesses and “at least two both versions” the incident reporter’s] Speer, had version.” 828 F.2d at [the corroborated Here, however, spoke 478. Kent never with Anderson story. obtain his side Peeler,

Furthermore, supreme our court’s supra, decision subjective similarly unavailing. The Peeler court ruled falsity convincing probable awareness of is not shown with clarity by indicating publisher plaintiff “disa they greed respect perceptions with to their events which Masson, agree explained 4. We with the court which that Harte- Supreme precedent proposition and other Court stand for the Hanks already publisher who not have ‘obvious to doubt' "that a does reasons accuracy story investigation required drat of a is not to initiate an exists, however, might plant publisher such doubt. Once doubt Thus, reasonably dispelling publisher must act it. where thе under- investigate accuracy story casting of a and learns facts takes to therein, may ignore the information contained it not those doubt on doubts, though duty investigation even no in the had conduct Masson, place.” first 960 F.2d at 901. Although Bray story the record before us indicates "stands his issue,” actually die of what Anderson the National Guard determination Masson, uniquely question for the trier of fact. 501 U.S. at said is that, (stating although 111 S.Ct. 2419 the article's author contested allegations misquoted, "only plaintiff's ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍that he was a trial on the dispute”). merits will resolve the factual

481 Peeler, 266-67, both observed.” S.C. S.E.2d As recognizes, though The Chronicle nor neither Peeler states, Wyoming opinion quoted therein so language this effectively interpretation” recites the “rational doctrine out Time, lined Supreme Court Inc. v. Pape, U.S. 633, Bose, (1971), 28 L.Ed.2d 45 and supra. These cases held that a publisher where chooses “one of a possible interpretations” number of rational an of event “bristl[ing] choice,.even with ambiguities,” the if it reflects a misconception, protected under the First Amendment. 633; Bose, Pape, 512, 104 401 U.S. at S.Ct. 1949. The Chronicle contends that Kent “was because presеnted in preceding articles with a rational account of did,” what Bray why said to said [Anderson] he what he cannot Anderson establish actual malice.

Masson, however, explicitly rejected “rational inter pretation” protection defamatory statements the context Masson, alleged misquotations. 501 U.S. at There, S.Ct. 2419. unequivocally the Court stated “[t]he protection for rational interpretation First serves Amendment principles by allowing interpretive author the that is license necessary relying upon ambiguous when Id. at sources.” added). (emphasis S.Ct. 2419 As the Court noted:

Were quotations interpreta- we assess under a rational standard, tion give journalists we would the freedom to place subjects’ statements in their mouths without fear of liability.... only public figures Not but press doubtless would Newsworthy figures might suffer under such rule. wary journalists, knowing any become more com- ment could be subject, transmuted attributed to the so long interpretation some bounds of rational not were exceeded. We would ill serve values of the First absolute, grant Amendment if we near were constitution- al protection practice. for such a Masson, signifiсance

Id. at 111 S.Ct. 2419. As in unqualified The Chronicle’s statement that “told this newspaper” he was in the National is to inform Guard statement, reading reader he is Anderson’s not The Chroni interpretation cle’s “rational of what said or [Anderson] 519-20, thought.” reject Id. at 111 S.Ct. 2419. We therefore liar run” of “Let the any part that contention The Chronicle’s interpretation.”6 “rational doctrine of under the protected is that in hand, reflects the record to the evidence Turning to that ever claimed denial he emphatic addition to Anderson’s Anderson Guard, knew The Chronicle in the National be with National National Flood confused thought Bray had Boyette he had been told testified he John Guard. Anderson companies. insurance working for various in North Carolina this, referencing not 18 article confirms September Boyette’s actually that he assertion but also his only Anderson’s denial in North Carolina working spent two months said he testimony, he con- According to Anderson’s National Flood. and was Boyette’s article dispute The Chronicle tacted situation “covered” Boyette had the impression under the “put to rest.” a call from

However, 26 Anderson received September working on an Willis, she was Pat who said The Chronicle’s special election. upcoming candidates article about proof asked him for specifically testified Willis Anderson adjuster and that he insurance federally-approved he was response, In year before. in North had worked Carolina along with a of information pages faxed Willis seven Anderson which read: cover sheet Pat Willis

To:

Fr: Tom Anderson — I am certified info follow Proves National Flood — run prior Ask to have retraction their claims John handle to 11^-97. — pages

NFIP Info — pages

Resume distinguishable Peeler factually from both case is 6. We further note this Publ’ns, McMurry rationality principle, v. Howard and its source for the Inc., only (Wyo.1980). did Peeler involve a situation Not 612 P.2d listeners, including emerged what several discrepancy between which a absolutely say, they party there was thought a third reporter, heard publisher had reason to doubt suggesting reporter or no evidence McMurry, on the publication. at issue the truth of tire statements before hand, plaintiff parties heard the clearly where several a case other meaning of what was said say thing, interpreted the the same but therefore, statement, protected under a differently; properly was interpretation principle. rational — [Ejlection info 2 pages pages

The transmission included a supervisor letter operations, NFIP’s claims field September dated 1996 and addressed to Anderson on Program National Flood Insurance stationery, that in part: pleased you stated “We are to advise your application Adjuster for NFIP Certification has approved.”7 sheet, been As indicated on the cover also prepared faxed resume he during used his cam paign for House Seat 84.8 with

Replete references to his work flood insurance and matters, 1) related the resume noted Anderson had been supervising commended for flood in projects restoration four states; 2) responsible contractors, for “approximately 200 and damage workmen assessors in efforts to house 4500 families”; 3) flood program Johnstown, inundated a in chief 4) Pennsylvania following flood; a destructive a contract 5) coordinator in Angeles 1979; Los in after mudslides supervisor following Winslow, Arizona; work in flooding and 6) an appraiser of “property damage for various insurance companies government agencies and following An- hurricanes drew, Freddie, Hugo, Alicia, Camille, Thus, Betsy....” [and] only directly Anderson not Bray’s contradicted initial reports Chronicle, in The he newspaper, furnished the at its request, with documentary to support his denial.

Although age resume, Anderson’s was not listed on the it did military refer to his in Boyette’s service the Korean War. also Army, article stated Anderson “was drafted into the and, in two-year served the Korean War after stint Europe, was discharged military in 1956.” Because records verifiable, public easily are and jury we believe a could have Chronicle, possession information, concluded The in full of this letter, specifically 7. Anderson testified the which him authorized to residential, losses,” "handle commercial and condominium reflected a adjuster renewal of his status as a certified for National Flood. Accord- Anderson, ing agency had certified him "five or six times” before 1996. Although The Chronicle now asserts documents faxed to Willis "confusing," paper were attempt made no to contact Anderson for explanation request or to additionаl information. statement was purported have Anderson’s should realized light age advanced of his highly improbable, particularly with inconsistent his obviously fact such a claim was and the resume, no mention of military which service but made listed Guard.9 the National Anderson, about known The above-stated facts run,” support liar our publication of “Let the before found the news jury that a could have

conclusion reasonable of his Bray’s had “obvious to doubt” recollection paper reasons phone call question, with Without conversation Anderson. clearly some doubt at The Chronicle from Pat Willis evidences National accurately attributed the Guard Bray as to whether remark, only deny to him. did Anderson he remark Not Bray’s supported by logical explanation for confusion offered facts, In we believe The documentary light these evidence. investigation into failure to undertake reasonable Chronicle’s published it jury question matter creates a to whether Amant, 390 U.S. at the editorial with actual malice.10 St. (“Publishing with doubts shows [obvious] disregard falsity truth or actual demonstrates reckless Butts, 169-70, (Warren, malice.”); result) (“Suffice C.J., conсurring say that little investi initially, inquiries was no additional gative expended effort by respondent were made even the editors notified were after account to was abso daughter and his that the be Instead, Saturday Evening proceeded Post lutely untrue. knowledge with full of the harm that on its reckless course article.”); Masson, likely publication would result from could a (holding F.2d at 900-01 evidence which sustain knowledge on jury actual malice included verdict concerning that "evidence whether or not 9. The Chronicle’s assertion could have in the National Guard does not establish [Anderson] served Bray during telephone reporter said to [he] what their two interviews” point. inquiry involved in the malice is not misses The issue actual said, whether The had reason to doubt the what Anderson but accuracy Bray’s report its own that Anderson or conclusion was report. on that liar based remand, failure to "[i]t As noted in on not ... act 10. Masson malice; reasonably only failure is a link in itself that establishes that (but not) jury the chain of that could need lead a to conclude inferences investigation publisher to conduct an because was that failed Masson, fаlsity.” already pretty 960 F.2d much aware of part publisher the plaintiff disputed that the accuracy of quotation to him along attributed with the fact that publisher did not plaintiffs charge dismiss the of inaccuracy hand). out of

Furthermore, Anderson’s trial circumstantially evidence an supports of actual inference malice in this case. Without objection, Anderson entered into by editorial Langley appeared Senior Writer Carl that in the Aiken Stan September 21,1997. dard on : Langley wrote year ago, shortly A elections, before the November Anderson, a adjuster, semi-retired insurance claims was independent asked a group companies insurance process help damage claims from hurricane North Car- olina. large

A number of claims were made under the National Flood Insurance Program, which Anderson to in referred conversations me his with and which he told me he gave to reporter. another

(He not only last year, but furnished information this I again past why June after asked he did not campaign election.) before the 1996 supported by introducing

Anderson this affirmation a brief clip September the Aiken Standard dаted 1996 and help headlined “Candidate leaves area to Fran victims.” In part, relevant the article stated: County

Aiken House candidate Tom Anderson has had to off campaign help break his House 84 to process District resulting insurance claims from Hurricane Fran’s destruc- in North tion Carolina.

Anderson, the Democratic candidate in House District working was called out of and is now town claims Virginia, Party North Carolina and a Democratic official said. reasonably

A jury could infer from this evidence that Flood, had in or fact said National even cursory investigation of his denial would have revealed the of misunderstanding. likelihood documentary

Other Anderson’s evidence includes cancelled check, ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍dated 1996 and to an inn in payable October Jacksonville, N.C., “lodging that bore the notation 9/9 —Fran inquired had fur- Certainly, if Chronicle 10/10/[9]6.”

to prove fact he ther, it could in would have discovered Anderson claims in North Carolina working on hurricane-related was Moreover, a just election. reasonable before the November inaccuracy a that claims of from candidate jury could infer a seriously by running for would be tаken news- public office publish to the truth. The failure paper purporting Chronicle’s legitimate jury a for a to conclude “Let provides do so basis to published with actual malice because liar run” was the Harte-Hanks, 491 an to avoid the truth. See evinces intent (“[I]t likely newspa- 692-93, 109 is that the at a of not to per’s product inaction was a deliberate decision probable confirm the knowledge might of facts that acquire investigate will falsity Although of failure to [its editorial].... purposeful ... finding a of actual malice the support not alone a category.... of truth is in different [Evi- avoidance only not to of an to avoid the truth was sufficient dence intent had plurality that there been [in Butts] convince the standards, publishing departure professional [ ] extreme satisfy demanding to York [New it was also sufficient more Masson, ....”); (stating F.2d standard Times] to in the conscious proof absence decision alter even publisher’s part, jury could still conclude quotation on the quote’s publisher had obvious reasons to doubt the accura- truth, but, “in avoid cy purposefully an effort to failed investigation” plaintiffs claims of conduct reasоnable (citations omitted); Elder, inaccuracy) S.C. (finding at 902 actual malice be established when S.E.2d purposeful- is at some that “the defendant there least evidence truth”). ly avoided the fact support

Further found phone not “hot conversation editorial was news.” The Bray which claimed he was in the National Anderson stated article, prior to first point Bray’s occurred at some Guard did appeared April which The Chronicle on Kent 1, nearly the liar run” six publish not “Let until October Undoubtedly, if The suspected months later. Bray, ample opportunity investigate it had lied editorial; publishing matter of inten before can tional avoidance itself lead to a reasonable conclusion Stevens, at 815 recklessness. See S.C. S.E.2d

487 disregard defamatory (finding reckless where the matter was newspaper verify not “hot and it despite news” failed Indeed, warnings concerning falsity). jury logically its a could infer some measure of conduct from fact The reckless Kent, publish opinions Chronicle chose to wait and of tone, political whose bias was evident in the editorial’s until just special a few weeks before the election.11

Finally, publication The of a Chronicle’s “Clarification” on 29, susceptible bolstering October 1997 is of an a inference finding disregard. published of reckless clarification was a nearly defaming month after the editorial Anderson. Al though also noted Anderson’s assertion he had been mis quoted Bray, the June article this was six weeks after Boyette told about Inferentially, the mistake. a jury could find The Chronicle’s lackluster “clarification” was recognize defamatory editorial/opinion 11. We a item in an may against finding column in some circumstances militate of actual Elder, 9, ("The malice. See 341 S.C. at n. 533 S.E.2d at 904 n. 9 story question 'form and content of are relevant ... to the actual 2678). [a] of ") Harte-Hanks, 695, (quoting malice.' However, 491 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 'opinion' public "where a statement of on a matter of reasonably implies defamatory regarding public concern false and facts officials, figures they] or those individuals recover if [can show that knowledge implications such statements were made with of their false disregard or with of their reckless truth.” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 1, 20, (1990). 111 L.Ed.2d As noted in Milkovich: liar,” says, speaker my opinion implies If a “In John Jones is a he knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an speaker upon Even the which untruth. if states facts he bases his opinion, incomplete, if those facts are either incorrect or or if his erroneous, imply assessment of them is the statement still a false Simply couching assertion of fact. such statements terms of statement, opinion dispel implications; my "In does not these liar,” damage opinion reputation much Jones is a can cause as as statement, "Jones is a liar.” 18-19, Thus, appears Id. at 110 S.Ct. 2695. the mere fact that an item page "opinion” on the editorial and is couched in terms of an does not id.; speaker publisher liability. relieve the or see also Good- Kennedy, (Ct.App.2001) win v. 347 S.C. 552 S.E.2d uphold requested jury (applying Milkovich to the trial court’s denial of a opinion non-defamatory "appear[ed] exempt all instruction qualification”). contrary, comment without To the the same constitu- analysis applies opinion imply tional to statements of an assertion fact, unless, course, capable being proved the statement is not either true or false. liar run” liability for “Let the аttempt to avoid merely harm done to rectifying the a sincere effort at rather than Metromedia, See, e.g., Rosenbloom reputation. Anderson’s (1971) L.Ed.2d 296 Inc., news, and (“Denials, retractions, are not ‘hot’ and corrections story.”). The original of the rarely prominence receive the by the fact a conclusion is buttressed of such reasonableness clarify anything; put it failed to did not the “Clarification” previous editorial or by referencing either the issue context it was Bray. important, More neither by Boyette articles false statements. allegedly correction nor retraction (“Refusal to an ex F.2d at 1071 retract Zerangue, 814 See malice.”). of actual support finding to a posed error tends true, testimony, think combined we Anderson’s Taken record, is documentary in the evidence with the irrefutable The jury a to decide whether Chronicle permit to sufficient liar run” with actual statements “Let the published the Masson, 510, a (stating at 111 2419 501 U.S. S.Ct. malice. See attrib- defamatory of the statements plaintiffs sworn denial him, additional as the combined with such uted to said, actually statements to what was resemblance practical affording the author tight of a deadline absence opportunity to make corrections ability investigate, to and the jury question as to whether the along way, created a malice). with actual At the statements defendant to The had no more reason publication, the time of than report his of Anderson’s statement Bray believe and Masson, in court observed in denial. As the lower Anderson’s evidence, it not unreasonable to independent is the absence alleged alteration in a publisher investigate to expect a verify asking and him to by confronting the author quotation support- or other accuracy by producing notes the statement’s Masson, F.2d at 902. 960 ing materials. this

Moreover, if told news- “[Anderson] even the statement duty” were found away to National Guard paper he was called “slip at most a true, jury could infer was to be a reasonable attempt to mislead. tongue” and not an intentional Thus, correctly the National Guard if editorial attributed not a jury determined he was to Anderson but the statement for defama- liar, still be entitled to recover Anderson would Bankshares, 501 Sandberg, Inc. v. U.S. Virginia tion.

489 1097, (1991) (“[A] 111 S.ct. 1083, 2749, L.Ed.2d defаmatory assessment of facts can be actionable even if the underlying facts accurately presented.”). the assessment are Supreme repeatedly Court has stated is no “there constitutional value in of fact.” false statements Welch, Inc., 2997, v. Robert Gertz 94 S.Ct. (1974); Herbert, L.Ed.2d 789 see 441 U.S. at (“Spreading false information and of itself carries no credentials.”). First Amendment The Court also has noted “quotations devastating be instrument for convey Masson, ing meaning.” false U.S. S.Ct. 2419. invaluable,” Miller, “a person’s reputation Because 322 S.C. 471 S.E.2d at publish defamatory “[t]hose who requisite falsehoods with the ... culpability subject are aim liability, being only compensate not injury but also publication unprotected to deter threatening material injury Herbert, to individual reputation.” [Ajmendment unique

First cases society are because our places high issues, value on public free discussion of and engage those who in that protected discussion are even However, they when make careless reputation errors. is also value, attempt, possible, protect the courts where both speech reputation. Balancing freedom оf these two publisher interests mandates that a have [F]irst clear [Ajmendment protection liability for the nonmali- first publication story. However, cious of an erroneous once the publisher story knows that ... argu- is erroneous weighting ment the scales on the side of [FJirst [Ajmendment compelling.... interests becomes less At point, some required publisher slight, the effort is so helplessness great, and the of the victim so that the balance tips. of the scales (internal omitted). 814 F.2d at 1072

Zerangue, citations Ac- although cordingly, the actual malice standard substan- “offers protection tial critic it public figure,” “should not be signal politics.” taken as a that ‘Allis fair’ in George, 345 S.C. 462, at at 548 S.E.2d 879-80.

The evidence us supports record before an inference beyond The “sloppy journalism” Chronicle went found in 490 satisfied liar run.” We are “Let

Peeler when Anderson, favorable to evidence, light most viewed in the this sending the justify clarity sufficient convincing is of a Anderson, 477 U.S. jury. to a of actual malice question reviewing duty of the (declaring it the 257, 2505 106 S.Ct. is such presented “whether the evidence court to determine had been that actual malice might find jury that a reasonable thereforе, court, trial clarity”). The convincing shown with ground. on this directing a verdict erred and REMANDED. REVERSED GOOLSBY, J., concurs.

HEARN, C.J., separate opinion. in a dissents C.J., HEARN, dissenting: clear and present failed to I believe Anderson Because -with actual acted

convincing malice, I dissent. respectfully plaintiff figures,” the involving “public

In defamation actions was made with statement proving bears the burden knowledge the statement is, with either actual malice—that Times New York Co. disregard for its truth. or reckless false 726, 11 279-80, 710, L.Ed.2d Sullivan, 254, 84 S.Ct. v. 376 U.S. 113, 108, 533 (1964); 341 S.C. Gaffney Ledger, Elder v. (2000). is sufficient to the evidence 899, Whether S.E.2d of law. Harte- question is a finding of actual malice support 657, Communications, Connaughton, v. Inc. Hanks (1989). appel An L.Ed.2d 562 109 S.Ct. to determine review the record independently court must late support at trial is sufficient presented whether the evidence 113-14, Elder, malice. S.C. finding of actual Columbia, 902; 322 S.C. City Miller v. West S.E.2d (1996). cases, court must In all 471 S.E.2d support could in the record the evidence determine whether malice proved actual finding plaintiff jury reasonable Liberty convincing See Anderson evidence. clear 255-56, 2505, 2513-14, Inc., Lobby, added). (1986) (emphasis L.Ed.2d 202 testing publish- subjective standard Actual malice is the truth of his or her statements. in the good faith belief er’s Inc., v. Spartan Radiocasting, Peeler 324 S.C. 478 S.E.2d (1996). Therefore, in to prevail, order Anderson must present convincing establishing clear and The evidence Chron- statements, good icle had no faith in the truth of its belief disregard thus acted with reckless for truth publish- when truth, “A ing disregard’ “Let the Liar Run.” ‘reckless for the however, requires departure reasonably more than a Elder, prudent conduct.” at 902. S.C. S.E.2d Instead, present plaintiff must “sufficient evidence that in the defendant fact entertained serious doubts to the publication.” truth of his Amant v. Thompson, St. (1968)

727, 731, 1323, 1325, (emphasis S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 262 in original). “There must be evidence the had a defendant ” ‘high degree probable falsity.’ Elder, of awareness of ... (quoting S.C. 533 S.E.2d at 902 Garrison v. Louisiana, 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964)) such, in (emphasis original). prove To Anderson must evidence, present subjective standpoint, from a which demon- regard strates what The with alleged Chronicle knew to the falsity of its It statements. is insufficient to show the defen- dant merely investigate; made editorial choice or failed to purpose- must be there evidence least the defendant fully (citations omitted) avoided the truth. Id. (emphasis added).

I believe there is insufficient in the record publishing establish The Chronicle acted with аctual malice Bray the editorial written Kent. After first interviewed Anderson, published stating The Chronicle an article Anderson was the National Guard. When Anderson an- candidate, would run as a again spoke nounced he he with more, Bray and a in which once second article was alleged The referenced Chronicle Anderson’s service requested ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍National Guard. Anderson never a retraction or Boyette It not until publication. correction either was request contacted Anderson about the GOP’s having withdraw from the race Anderson denied made Furthermore, Bray. report- such The statements Chronicle why ed Anderson’s version of he was in North Carolina and telling that Anderson denied he in the served discussing National in its article the GOP’s sentiments. Guard Run,” The Liar Chroni- of “Let the publication Prior to the him that she and informed contacted Anderson cle’s Pat Willis that he was requested proof working on an article was that he had adjuster and insurance government-approved might jury A reasonable in 1996. in North Carolina worked that The Chroni- investigation subjective as evidence this view and that had was he Anderson so licensed cle did not believe in Nаtional serving was the Bray to believe he in fact allowed his status as prove was able to Though Anderson Guard. that not establish this fact does adjuster, insurance certified being in Bray his reason for accurately communicated he purposefully avoided and that The Chronicle North Carolina Moreover, from Liar Run.” “Let the publishing the truth when Chronicle, position its that The subjective point of view of is in the National Guard had he was Anderson stated object to The Chroni- failure to strengthened by Anderson’s in his Bray’s continued belief prior reports and cle’s two with Anderson. of the interview version fact that The Chronicle majority places emphasis The Bray’s disputed assertion was aware that Anderson However, National Guard. he served Anderson stated in fact knew fails to The Chronicle this evidence demonstrate Rather, this fact Liar Run.” falsity of its editorial “Let the of Anderson’s only that The Chronicle knew demonstrates fact The Bray’s version of the interview —a disagreement with Moreover, as evidence published had well. Chronicle says of their conversation disputed Bray’s version Anderson knowledge as to the truth about The nothing Chronicle’s Bray stоod behind his matter, considering that especially recollection of the interview. own only presented at trial was Anderson’s

The evidence reporters from The testimony about his conversations with subjective test for actual malice Because the Chronicle. of Anderson’s publisher, of the evidence knowledge to the light on fails to shed recollection of the interviews personal good faith about the truth of believed what Chronicle no evidence published. presented Anderson the statements indus- newspaper of the regarding practices the standards and in fact any that The Chronicle try present nor did he evidence Bray had served the Nation- did not tell he knew Anderson Furthermore, publica- challenge Anderson’s al Guard. tion only Republican came after Party asked him to public withdraw the race. As a figure, Anderson bore proof burden establish actual malice clear and Peeler, convincing evidence. 324 S.C. at 478 S.E.2d at I Because believe the presented by falls far short of establishing The “Let the Liar Run” with a high degree of knowledge probable as to its I falsity, would affirm the trial court’s directed verdict in favor publisher.

585 S.E.2d 523 STATE, Respondent, TUFTS, Appellant. Andre

No. 3647. Appeals

Court of of South Carolina. April

Heard 2003.

Decided June 2003. Rehearing Aug. Denied

Case Details

Case Name: Anderson v. the Augusta Chronicle

Court Name: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date Published: Oct 3, 2003

Citation: 585 S.E.2d 506

Docket Number: 3597

Court Abbreviation: S.C. Ct. App.