SF Chronicle v. Bonds

(Note: I wrote this before news came down about the result of the hearing. Obviously, this negates a bit of what I have said. Still, I think the commentary about how the Chronicle handled the lawsuit is valid. Remind me to take a look tomorrow at how they cover the dismissal.)

So Barry Bonds has decided to sue the authors of Book of Shadows. I’m not going to get into the whole Bonds/steroids discussion right now, but I am a bit curious about how the San Francisco Chronicle is covering the story.

Yesterday, the Chronicle published a book review of Book of Shadows. It was a very positive review, with very little criticism. But given that the authors of the book are Chronicle reporters – not to mention that they largely did the leg work for the book for the Chronicle – isn’t it a conflict of interest for the Chronicle to be publishing a review of the book?

After the review published, news of Bonds’ suit hit. The Chronicle was quick to write a report about the development, including quotes from the Chronicle’s own lawyer. Perfectly acceptable behaviour – this is a newsworthy item after all.

Where things went off the rails is with their analysis of the situation. The author, Matthew B. Stannard, initially discusses the unique angle used to file the lawsuit and the hurdles that Bonds’ lawyer faces to prove his case. But then he starts to get goofy:

But irony aside, most of the experts interviewed described the legal attack on "Game of Shadows" as a somewhat desperate stretch -- what Stern called "good PR, but ... a legal square peg being driven into a round hole."

Which experts? He quoted three experts before that paragraph, and also quotes a separate expert in the end. Does that mean that 3 of the 4 experts quoted believe this? Were there other experts who might have differing opinions that were not quoted? (3 of the 4 experts were strongly of the belief that the lawsuit was futile, while the 4th was open to the arguments presented by Bonds’ lawyer.)

And then there’s the wording: a more neutral wording instead of “legal attack” (how about “law suit”?) and “desperate stretch” (“difficult argument to prove”?) would at least give the air of impartiality, especially considering that the article was to be published by one of the defendants.

In fact, several experts said, Rains' effort comes close enough to the appearance of an attempt to prevent publication and sales of the book -- despite his denials -- that he and his client could be subject to legal sanctions by the defendants, something Eve Burton, general counsel for the Hearst Corp., owner of The Chronicle, said might be on the table.

"To say Mr. Bonds' tactic is novel would be an understatement," Burton said. "The S.F. Chronicle will request Mr. Bonds to withdraw his application for a restraining order, and if he fails to do so, we will seek sanctions under the laws of California, as well as vigorously contesting any further legal action he may bring."

(Note the wording here: it frames Rains as being the villain in this proceeding by questioning his motives (“despite his denials”), and also contains a threat to Rains that he better step off, or else the Chronicle will be forced to pursue their own actions.)

Again, the anonymous experts are brought into the argument. Only this time, none are quoted to support Stannard’s assertation about the appearance of the lawsuit. The only person who is quoted in regards to this piece of analysis is the general counsel for the newspaper that is being sued (and is publishing this analysis). This only brings more question as to the objectiveness of the analysis. Why is Burton quoted, while Rains is not given a forum in this “analysis” to explain his point of view? And further more how is Burton’s quote even applicable to the analysis?

The real question, some legal experts said, is why Bonds' attorneys turned to such a complicated and novel approach rather than take the traditional route of filing a defamation lawsuit.

"We're going through these gymnastics because in order to bring a defamation suit, truth is a defense," Stern said. "He wants to be able to bring a suit, but he doesn't want to bring truth into the issue."

Where is the opinion to counteract this, specifically that in order to win a defamation suit, Bonds not only has to prove that what was said was not true, but that he has suffered actual damage, which is significantly more difficult to prove. To not bring this up is a glaring oversight, and makes this seem like a PR defense instead of a true analysis of the lawsuit and its merits.

BTW: On the Chronicle website, links to the analysis uses the blurb “Analysis: Experts call lawsuit a longshot”. The title on the article? “'NOVEL' TACTIC: Legal experts say complaint is unique use of state Unfair Competition Law”

The Chronicle needs to be much more careful with their reporting. Right now it seems as though they are using their paper to defend themselves in public, as well as promote a book they have a vested interest in.