Question

for a newspaper to be found guilty of libeling a public official, the accused party must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that what was printed was damaging, even if it was printed accidentally.
sue the reporter who wrote the story and not the newspaper that published it.
sue the newspaper that published the story and not the reporter who wrote it.
provide clear and convincing evidence that what was printed was malicious.
establish that what was printed could have been interpreted in more than one manner.
the television weekly \60 minutes\ runs a segment on the role of local politicians in the drug trade. the issue soon becomes the subject of national debate. in these circumstances, \60 minutes\ is acting as a(n) ______.
gatekeeper
scorekeeper
watchdog
investigator
ombudsman

Explanation:

First Question (Libel of Public Official)

To determine the correct answer, we analyze libel law for public officials. Public officials have a higher burden: they must show the statement was made with "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth), which requires clear and convincing evidence.

• Option 1: "Beyond reasonable doubt" is too high (used in criminal cases), and accidental printing doesn’t meet malice.
• Option 2: Suing only the reporter is incorrect; the publisher (newspaper) can be sued.
• Option 3: Suing only the newspaper is incorrect; both can be liable.
• Option 4: Matches the requirement for public officials (clear/convincing evidence of malice).
• Option 5: Ambiguity in interpretation isn’t relevant to libel guilt.

In media roles, a "watchdog" monitors powerful entities (like politicians) to expose wrongdoing.

• Gatekeeper: Controls information flow (e.g., deciding what stories run, not exposing).
• Scorekeeper: Tracks political competition (e.g., election stats).
• Watchdog: Exposes corruption/misconduct (matches "60 Minutes" investigating politicians in drug trade).
• Investigator: Too generic; "watchdog" is the media-specific term.
• Ombudsman: Resolves complaints between public and organizations, not investigative.

Answer:

D. provide clear and convincing evidence that what was printed was malicious.

Second Question (Role of "60 Minutes")