Malicious Sports Talk Radio?

Lindros case seeks to stifle freewheeling format

Philadelphia, June 6, 1997 -- Eric Lindros, the captain of the Philadelphia Flyers, is a rugged 6'4" 236 pound competitor who is known for his ability to "hit opponents with the force and aggression of a football player while moving the puck with the delicacy of a golf pro." Lindros has a loyal following in Philadelphia and his stature is likely to grow if his team wins the Cup.

The owners of Philadelphia radio station WIP-AM should follow Lindros's current success with more than passing interest. That is because the station is a defendant in a defamation suit filed by the Flyers and their owner, alleging that a comment made by one of their talk show hosts that Lindros had missed a game "due to a hangover" was false and damaged the player's reputation. This action against a "sports talk" radio station, raises novel questions about how the nature of comments made on the relatively new format of sports radio, whether such statements made by commentators without the kind of fact-checking one sees in more traditional journalism constitutes actual malice.

In the ten years since New York-based WFAN created the 24-hour sports talk model, the popularity of this genre has exploded. WIP has earned a reputation as a "hard-driving, testosterone-heavy" example of the species. On one occasion, the station promoted an event called the "Wing Bowl," an eating contest where the participants are encouraged to eat to the point until they vomited. Just a few days ago, the afternoon hosts of WIP were attempting to inject their views on international relations when they called five Russian players from the opposing team, the Detroit Red Wings, "communists" and their fans "commie-lovers." No one will confuse WIP with National Public Radio.

Although defamation suits by athletes and sports team personnel are not that rare, the Lindros case was only the second case brought against a sports talk radio station. Craig Carton, one of the radio station's hosts, reported on February 28, 1997 that Lindros "had been drinking in a public place the night before the game, had shown up with a hangover, and had been suspended for the game by the club." Carton cited four unnamed sources, including two inside the Flyers organization. A year earlier, the Flyers almost sued the station and another host who reported that Lindros was friends with a reputed Philadelphia organized crime boss.

Although the case was ultimately settled out of court, it raises troubling issues. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, it is difficult for a "public figure" to win such a case unless he proves: (1) the falsity of the statement and (2) the utterance was made with "actual malice" defined to be knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard" for its truth.

Sports radio, unlike, a newspaper or broadcast news operation, does not check out the veracity of their stories. The "freewheeling nature" of the format -- with lots of banter between fans and the hosts and between hosts themselves -- makes sports talk a peculiar mix or news, entertainment and opinion.

And that is the problem. If the allegation against Lindros was reported in a newspaper article or traditional news broadcast, the question of the lack of adequate checking would be a major consideration in determining malice, although the Supreme Court has ruled that such a failure does not automatically confer liability. With this hybrid combination of news, entertainment and opinion, that duty could be clouded. If however, it can be deemed as pure opinion (which would be difficult in a specific allegation that the player had a "hangover" on a certain day), the plaintiffs could not prove defamation.

Assuming that the statement is "factual" the question of the fact-checking comes into play. If the station had "four unnamed sources, including two from the team" (as WIP claims) back up the allegation, should that be enough for WIP to win the case? Probably because if the standard of sport talk station is not to do any checking, one can argue that WIP acted more responsibly in this situation than is the norm, negating any thought of reckless disregard.

Cases like this are watched by other athletes. Mario Lemieux, the former star of the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins, considered suing a Pittsburgh sports-talk station whose host "jokingly suggested" that Lemieux pushed for the team to acquire Petr Klima because that player's wife and Lemieux's wife were lesbian lovers. These kinds of suits, and their resulting adverse publicity, could force sports-talk stations exercise more restraint.

The following quote from a Philadelphia Inquirer media columnist should give some pause for WIP and for other sports talk stations. "For the last few years, WIP and its hosts have played fast and loose with rumors and innuendo at the expense of the closest available coach, team executive, athlete or reporter to stoke listeners and build ratings. It doesn't seem to matter to some of the station's talent that the money flowing into the coffers because of those ratings is blood money, earned at the expense of someone's reputation" The law may be on the WIP's side, but broadcasting ethics is another question.