The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 14

Defamation suit from 1995 against Daily Local News settled

By Kathleen Brady Shea
Inquirer Staff Writer

In April 1995, a Parkesburg politician's epithet-ridden rant against two colleagues prompted a local newspaper article, which in turn generated a defamation suit against the paper that ultimately made national headlines.

More than a decade later -- after appellate detours that included the U.S. Supreme Court -- the case returned to Chester County, where a confidential settlement July 13 ended three days of testimony.

Instead of listening to closing arguments on whether the plaintiffs -- former Parkesburg Mayor Alan M. Wolfe and former Council President James B. Norton -- deserved monetary compensation from the Daily Local News and its staff for damage to their reputations, the jury was dismissed.

"The case has been amicably resolved," said Norton's attorney, Geoffrey R. Johnson.

The settlement ends a lengthy legal battle that left the state's media outlets concerned about the chilling effect on newsgathering after a 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision affirming a lower court ruling in favor of the elected officials. The appeals court ruled that the media have no absolute constitutional protection when reporting defamatory comments made by reputable public figures, even when describing the comments in a neutral manner.

David Kairys, a Temple University professor of constitutional law, said July 13 that it is unfortunate that Pennsylvania does not recognize "some form of the neutral privilege" because he believes it helps keep the public informed about government.

"This decision leaves a pall over other reporters... and the people will hear less about their public officials than I think they should," he said.

None of the other participants in the case would discuss the settlement July 13.

"No comment," said Amy B. Ginensky, a defense attorney who instructed her clients to remain silent.

She was one of two lawyers representing Troy Publishing Inc., reporter Tom Kennedy, and editor William M. Caufield.

The Journal Register Company, which owns Troy Publishing, also had no comment.

Wolfe and Norton sued in response to an article that appeared in the April 20, 1995, issue of the Daily Local. The story, written by reporter Tom Kennedy, chronicled a rancorous three-minute meeting of Parkesburg Borough Council and a later diatribe from Councilman William Glenn to Kennedy.

The article -- headlined "Slurs, insults drag town into controversy" -- included Glenn's unsubstantiated accusations that Wolfe, then the mayor, and Norton, the council president, were "liars," "criminals," "queers," "draft dodgers" and "child molesters."

During the trial, the jury heard from Norton, Wolfe, and their wives, who all described the humiliation and anguish suffered by their families.

Nancy Norton said her husband, who taught English at Coatesville Senior High, remains fearful to this day of being alone with children because of the molestation allegation.

"It's on his mind all the time," she said.

George A. McGinnis, a neighbor of the Wolfes for eight years, testified he did not believe the accusation, but the fact that it could "possibly be true" bothered him enough that he kept a closer eye on his daughter, a friend of the Wolfes' daughter.

Former Daily Local editors testified that they did not verify the allegations made by Glenn but said they believed the story called Glenn's credibility into question. The fact that Glenn later lost his bid for reelection proved that point, they said.

"Sometimes the fact that the statement is made is the news, not the statement itself," said Caufield, the former Local editor.

Former managing editor Bruce Mowday, who works part time as a public information officer for Chester County, acknowledged that "the story could have been written differently" but echoed Caufield's view that the public needed to be informed about Glenn's behavior.

"It was a story about how government was not functioning," Mowday said.

Not all jurors agreed, expressing criticism of the paper and Kennedy, who was dismissed by the Daily Local three months after the story's publication.

"He seemed to go about his job too recklessly," said juror Wayne Bala.

Bala said he believed the paper had not balanced its job of informing the public with acting responsibly and he questioned the paper's lack of oversight.

Caufield testified that he discussed the story with Kennedy, read the first few paragraphs, and went home. He said he saw the final version when the paper arrived at his door the next morning.

"You need to be careful," Bala said. "You just can't say anything, because people's lives can be ruined."

Another juror, who declined to give her name, called Kennedy's reporting "reckless and stupid" but did not necessarily believe Norton and Wolfe experienced substantial harm. She said she sensed that some members of the panel sided with the newspaper.

Bala said he would have argued that the plaintiffs deserved "a couple hundred thousand dollars," and he felt Norton might merit more because of his position as a teacher.

In March 2000, Glenn was ordered to pay $17,500 each to Norton and Wolfe after a four-day trial.

Given instructions on a controversial privilege known as "neutral reporting," the jury found that Kennedy and the newspaper were not liable, a decision that fueled appeals and generated national media attention.

News organizations, including the Associated Press and Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., which published The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News, joined the appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In a "friend-of-the-court" brief, they argued that neutral-reporting privilege should apply and that its absence would have a chilling effect on political coverage, which is often riddled with allegations and name-calling.

In addition to affirming the appeals court ruling, the state justices in 2004 also ordered a new trial for Norton and Wolfe to decide the journalists' liability. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in March 2005, setting up the retrial in Chester County.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court missed a real opportunity to strengthen press freedom when it declined to adopt a 'neutral report' privilege to protect the press when it reports newsworthy allegations public officials make about each other," said Dave Heller, a staff attorney for the Media Law Resource Center in New York. "This sort of local news needs to be covered -- and if this case causes papers to shy away, it's the public that's the real loser."

Kairys, the Temple professor, believes the public suffers in another way because the settlement terms were not disclosed.

"We have laws that require open trials and proceedings," he said. "The public loses out because we don't know what happened here."

[BACK TO HEADLINES & DEADLINES HOME PAGE]