A $30 million defamation suit against NBC could be headed toward a jury trial. But a communications professor says NBC can avoid problems like this in the future if it breaks free from its ideological echo chamber.
A recent federal court ruling allows Dr. Mahendra Amin’s case to move forward against NBC for statements on MSNBC shows hosted by Chris Hayes, Nicolle Wallace, and Rachel Maddow .
Their shows repeated claims in September 2020 that Amin, a doctor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement , was a “uterus collector” who performed “mass hysterectomies.” NBC News also reported on the allegations, which MSNBC relied on for its shows.
Investigations into the alleged whistleblower’s claims found that there had been only two verified hysterectomies at the facility, both with the consent of the migrant women who received them.
“An average viewer watching the three broadcasts would understand that Plaintiff was accused of performing mass hysterectomies that were unnecessary and without consent,” District Court Judge Lisa Wood wrote in her ruling.
“Multiple statements are verifiably false,” Wood also wrote.
This finding could lead NBC to settle, according to DePauw University Professor Jeffrey McCall, a media critic and author of a book about the problems with news coverage.
“That the judge has already indicated that NBC made ‘verifiably false’ statements in its reporting is a huge plus for the doctor,” McCall told the Washington Examiner.
“NBC might well have been negligent in failing to confirm more fully the content of the whistleblower's statement,” McCall said. “It was also problematic that NBC repeated subjective and abstract language such as ‘mass hysterectomies.’”
“Of course, opinion and analysis are protected by the First Amendment , but such commentary can't be based on falsehoods, which the doctor claims,” the professor said.
There is “reason to think that NBC should have been more rigorous in verifying details in the case,” McCall said.
“The doctor might also be able to prove malice, given that it appears NBC wrestled with this story and still decided to forge ahead with flimsy verification,” McCall suggested. But the doctor may only have to prove negligence, not malice, since he might be viewed as a private figure, McCall said.
Chris Scholl, a “deputy head of NBC’s standards,” flagged the reporting ahead of its use, according to the trial record. Hayes and Maddow also questioned the veracity of the reports prior to their shows.
Scholl said the claim “boils down to a single source — with an agenda — telling us things we have no basis to believe are true.”
MSNBC’s own agenda might have led its hosts to jump the gun.
NBC’s “broad reputation as a left-leaning news organization” and its tendency to be “quite aggressive in criticizing the Trump administration and its immigration policies” played a role in its coverage, McCall said.
“Given these tendencies, it is not too hard to figure that Maddow, Wallace, and Hayes were eager to force this whistleblower report into a template/narrative that allowed for criticism that the Trump administration was treating migrants poorly,” McCall told the Washington Examiner.
The network’s reporting must maintain a “factual foundation,” and NBC should bring in a wide range of views, which can help it avoid blindspots, the communications professor said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Journalists, of all professionals, need to be able to report and analyze fairly if our nation is to conduct rational deliberations,” McCall said.
“It is also important that news organizations maintain staffs that have a broad range of viewpoints and perspectives,” he said. “Activist news outlets, such as NBC wants to consider itself these days, can suffer from groupthink, which short circuits thorough reporting and verification.”
Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.
Most Popular
Comments / 0