The nonprofit news organization Mississippi Today will not have to turn over confidential internal documents, as a judge has dismissed a libel suit brought by former Gov. Phil Bryant, Grant McLaughlin reports in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.
County Judge Bradley Mills’ ruling means that Mississippi’s shield protections for journalists, regarded as among the weakest in the country, will not be put to the test. Mississippi Today said in a message to its readers:
For the past 22 months, we’ve vigorously defended our Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting and our characterizations of Bryant’s role in the Mississippi welfare scandal. We are grateful today that the court, after careful deliberation, dismissed the case.
The reporting speaks for itself. The truth speaks for itself.
Bryant sued after Today, led by reporter Anna Wolfe, reported that he had been involved in a state welfare scandal that also implicated former NFL quarter Brett Favre. Wolfe won a Pulitzer Prize, but Bryant claimed that Today’s publisher, Mary Margaret White, falsely suggested at a speaking event that Bryant had broken the law. White apologized and said she had misspoken. The news outlet itself has not retracted any of its reporting.
Bryant sought access to internal communications in an attempt to show that Wolfe and her colleagues had committed “actual malice” — that is, that they knowingly or recklessly reported untrue facts about Bryant.
Despite last week’s good news, Mississippi Today may not be out of the woods yet. Ashton Pittman reports in the Mississippi Free Press, another nonprofit news organization, that Bryant’s lawyer plans to appeal and that he expects the case will eventually end up before the state supreme court.
“Gov. Bryant remains confident in the legal basis and righteousness of this case,” attorney Billy Quin told Pittman.
Under the First Amendment, reporters do not have a constitutional right to protect their anonymous sources or confidential documents. States are free to enact shield protections, and 49 states have done so; Wyoming is the lone exception.
But Mississippi — and, for that matter, Massachusetts — is on the weak end of those shield protections. Both states’ protections are based on state court precedents rather than a clearly defined shield law. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press regards Mississippi and Massachusetts as being among the eight worst states, following Wyoming, with regard to a journalist’s privilege.
That lack of strong protection came into play in Massachusetts recently when Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ruled Boston magazine reporter Gretchen Voss would be required to turn over off-the-record notes from an interview she conducted with high-profile murder suspect Karen Read. Cannone later reversed herself.
Thus in both Mississippi and Massachusetts the courts have declined to issue a ruling that would force a definitive decision as to whether reporters in those states have shield protections or not.
