Business Law
Some businesses are aggressive at suing the media that reports negative news about them. For
example, a cigarette company sued CBS for interviewing a disgruntled former executive; an
infomercial producer sued Forbes for $420 million for a negative article about infomercials;
ABC paid $15 million and made on-the-air apologies to settle a suit by two tobacco companies
demanding $10 billion for a report about “spiking” cigarettes with nicotine. It is claimed that
such suits are primarily to deter the media from negative reporting. The use of the law seems to
be mostly strategic—to discourage the media from being critical of company practices. Is this a
defensible business tactic?
The answer should abide by the following criteria:
Detail what legal principles apply and provide an explanation as to why. Explain the legal
reasoning for your decision or argument.
At least a half page in length per question.
Solution
The primary motive of media is to provide correct information and to make the society aware of
latest happenings in the society. An important point to be considered is what information has to
be provided. Interviewing a former employee may not cause much harm to the company, till the
time he speaks about the confidental information or provides confidental data to third parties
(which may be prohibited by the terms of his employment with the company even after his
termination). It is essential to ensure that such critical/sensitive and confidental information/data
is not shown on public channels.
If the intention behind providing the negative information is to damage the reputation of a
particular company/person, and the information so provided is not correct or is false, this practice
cannot be considered as ethical. In such a case, a valid defamation case can be filed by the
aggrieved party (company/person). However, if the information provided is correct and it is in
the best interests of the society (which includes investors in case of companies), any kind of law
suit filed against the information provider shouldn\'t hold valid in court of law. The ruling (by the
court), in any case, would be based on the facts provided by both the parties. The lawsuit should
act as a deterrent (for the media) only if the information provided by them is not correct or was
provided for personal interests (that is, negative reporting was done for personal benefits)..
Model Call Girl in Tilak Nagar Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
Business LawSome businesses are aggressive at suing the media that.pdf
1. Business Law
Some businesses are aggressive at suing the media that reports negative news about them. For
example, a cigarette company sued CBS for interviewing a disgruntled former executive; an
infomercial producer sued Forbes for $420 million for a negative article about infomercials;
ABC paid $15 million and made on-the-air apologies to settle a suit by two tobacco companies
demanding $10 billion for a report about “spiking” cigarettes with nicotine. It is claimed that
such suits are primarily to deter the media from negative reporting. The use of the law seems to
be mostly strategic—to discourage the media from being critical of company practices. Is this a
defensible business tactic?
The answer should abide by the following criteria:
Detail what legal principles apply and provide an explanation as to why. Explain the legal
reasoning for your decision or argument.
At least a half page in length per question.
Solution
The primary motive of media is to provide correct information and to make the society aware of
latest happenings in the society. An important point to be considered is what information has to
be provided. Interviewing a former employee may not cause much harm to the company, till the
time he speaks about the confidental information or provides confidental data to third parties
(which may be prohibited by the terms of his employment with the company even after his
termination). It is essential to ensure that such critical/sensitive and confidental information/data
is not shown on public channels.
If the intention behind providing the negative information is to damage the reputation of a
particular company/person, and the information so provided is not correct or is false, this practice
cannot be considered as ethical. In such a case, a valid defamation case can be filed by the
aggrieved party (company/person). However, if the information provided is correct and it is in
the best interests of the society (which includes investors in case of companies), any kind of law
suit filed against the information provider shouldn't hold valid in court of law. The ruling (by the
court), in any case, would be based on the facts provided by both the parties. The lawsuit should
act as a deterrent (for the media) only if the information provided by them is not correct or was
provided for personal interests (that is, negative reporting was done for personal benefits).
