Machleder v. Diaz
13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1369, 801 F.2d 46 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a claim for false light invasion of privacy against a media defendant, the plaintiff must prove that the portrayal is both substantially false and highly offensive to a reasonable person. A media organization's editorial decision to broadcast an accurate depiction of a person's behavior, even if unflattering, does not create liability if the underlying portrayal is not false.
Facts:
- Arnold Diaz, a reporter for WCBS-TV, received a tip about hundreds of rusting and leaking 55-gallon drums of hazardous chemicals at a dumpsite in Newark, New Jersey.
- On May 22, 1979, Diaz and his film crew went to the site and, mistakenly believing the drums were on the property of a nearby company called Flexcraft, approached the business.
- Diaz and his crew began filming and questioning Irving Machleder, Flexcraft's owner, about the barrels.
- Machleder became agitated, stated he did not want to be filmed, told the crew to "get that damn camera out of here," and denied that his company had dumped the barrels.
- Machleder informed Diaz that the Housing Department had all the information regarding the barrels.
- WCBS-TV aired a report that evening which included the footage of Machleder's angry reaction.
- The broadcast report omitted an earlier, less confrontational statement by Machleder: "I don't want to be on television, I'm sorry, I'm sorry."
- The televised report also stated that Flexcraft had, in fact, reported the illegal dumping to state and local authorities two years earlier and that nothing had been done.
Procedural Posture:
- Irving Machleder sued CBS, Inc. and its employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for libel, false light invasion of privacy, assault, and trespass.
- The district court denied CBS's motion for summary judgment on the false light and libel claims.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of CBS (defendant) on the libel claim, finding that the broadcast's defamatory statements were not substantially false.
- The jury found in favor of Machleder (plaintiff) on the false light claim, awarding him $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.
- The district court denied CBS's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial.
- CBS (appellant) appealed the judgment on the false light claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Machleder (appellee/cross-appellant) cross-appealed the dismissal of his other claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a news broadcast that accurately portrays a person's intemperate and evasive behavior, but omits other statements that might provide more context, constitute a false light invasion of privacy if the broadcast is neither substantially false nor highly offensive to a reasonable person?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, J.
No, a news broadcast that accurately portrays a person's behavior does not constitute a false light invasion of privacy if the portrayal is not substantially false or highly offensive. The tort of false light invasion of privacy requires the plaintiff to prove two essential elements: falsity and that the portrayal is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Here, the jury found on the related defamation claim that CBS's broadcast was not substantially false regarding the illegal dumping allegation. Furthermore, the portrayal of Machleder as 'intemperate and evasive' could not be false because it was based on his own conduct accurately captured on camera. The First Amendment protects the editorial judgment of the press, which includes the right to select what material to include in a broadcast; liability cannot be based on the failure to include additional facts that might cast the plaintiff in a more favorable light. Finally, as a matter of law, a portrayal of someone as merely 'intemperate and evasive' does not rise to the level of being 'highly offensive to a reasonable person,' a standard which courts have construed narrowly to protect First Amendment freedoms.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high constitutional barrier that plaintiffs face in false light invasion of privacy claims against media defendants. By firmly protecting editorial judgment under the First Amendment, the court clarifies that media outlets are not legally required to present a 'balanced' story to avoid liability, so long as the reported facts are substantially true. The decision significantly narrows the scope of the false light tort, preventing it from becoming a tool to punish journalists for accurate but unflattering portrayals of individuals involved in newsworthy events. It underscores that the core of a false light claim is falsity, not simply an unflattering presentation.
