The Legacy of Richard Jewell

When the finger-pointing has stopped and the juicy settlement is no longer news, something lasting may actually come out of the Richard Jewell episode. And it isn't what many people think.

 NBC settled a threatened libel suit with the Atlanta security guard before a claim was even filed, and later, CNN did the same. But because no court ruled on the issue, no legal precedent was set. And Jewell's attorneys' much-publicized plan to sue even local radio stations is based on conventional libel theories unlikely to break new legal ground.

 But less well known, and potentially more important, is the legal team's plan to sue for invasion of privacy on behalf of both Jewell and his mother. L. Lin Wood, one of Jewell's lawyers, says the plaintiffs will argue that the intense press surveillance amounted to an "intrusion upon their seclusion."

Historically, such claims against the press have not met with much success. But in recent months a handful of plaintiffs with similar claims have prevailed, or at least been allowed to go to trial. For example, a Pennsylvania couple sued when two Inside Edition reporters investigating the steep salaries of executives at U.S. Healthcare surreptitiously surveilled the suburban home of the daughter and son-in-law of the c.e.o (both of whom have top jobs at the company), followed them and their children to and from work and school, and trailed the whole family to their vacation home in an exclusive Florida enclave. A federal district court in Pennsylvania allowed the couple to proceed to trial and ordered the reporters to stop engaging in conduct that "invades the privacy" of the family.

 That case and others, indicating that courts are willing to weaken First Amendment protection for news gathering, have alarmed media attorneys. If such cases signal a trend, and Richard Jewell continues that trend in a highly publicized lawsuit, he may indeed have an impact on First Amendment law. But for now, based solely on the libel claims, New York media attorney Robert Sack says, "For lawyers, there has been no sea change from Richard Jewell. I would not change my advice to clients at all."

 Still, has there been a sea change for journalists? Tom Johnson, president of CNN News, says, "I know at CNN more care will be taken through the entire process." He feels CNN's reporting on the Jewell story was "accurate and fair," but acknowledges the tremendous pressures of deadlines and competition and says CNN must work harder not to get caught up in the "frenzy." Johnson says reporters will have to make more of an effort to put sources on the record and to "dig, dig, dig" for information on the side of the suspect, and that editors have to show greater restraint in deciding where to place the story.

Jonathan Alter, columnist and senior editor for Newsweek and contributing correspondent for NBC, agrees. Alter says that even if the media could legally cover the Jewell story in the manner that they did, "[Jewell] was still wronged, mostly by the FBI, but also by the media." He adds that "Doing everything we legally can has been disastrous for the reputation of the press in this country. We have to draw a distinction between the right to do something and the right thing to do."

 Both Alter and Johnson say this distinction is especially important in reporting on criminal investigations, because, says Alter, "prosecutors and law enforcement have too much power to manipulate the press." Johnson says, "You have to wonder, were we bei ng used in part? I think all of us will be more careful when law enforcement sources provide us with names of suspects and prime suspects."

 Maybe in the end Richard Jewell's legacy will be the best of both worlds. There will be no setback in the First Amendment rights of the press, but the press will be more careful in gathering information and reporting stories about ongoing criminal investigations.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe