PRIOR   BAD   REPUTATION.—   A  prior  bad reputation  defense  might  prove  useful  to  a  publisher accused of libel if it could be shown that the plaintiff already had an unsavory standing in the community and the  defamatory  statement  caused  very  little  additional injury. Keep  in  mind  that  these  partial  defenses  are  just that — partial. They may lessen punitive damages, or in some cases eliminate them, but they do not excuse the libel charge. Complete Defenses The seven complete defenses against libel charges can absolve the publisher of all liabilities if successfully used. Incidentally, it is important for you to note that in libel  cases,  unlike  other  cases  tried  in  our  country’s judicial system, the burden of proof is on the accused, not on the plaintiff or the prosecution. TRUTH.—   Truth  is  the  best  complete  defense against libel action. Some state laws read that truth alone will  suffice  as  a  defense  in  a  civil  libel  suit;  others maintain  that  the  truth  must  be  “without  malice.”  In either case, the facts published must be provably true. If   the   law   requires   “truth   without   malice,”   the defendant  also  must  prove  good  intentions.  Malice, however, as judged by the courts today, does not mean only “intent to harm.” The consensus appears to be that “truth   without   malice”   must   be   “truth   for   a   good reason.”  The  good  reason  is  usually  judged  by determining  if  the  material  presented  is  in  the  best interest or concern of the public. For example, a newspaper prints a story about a man running  for  a  high  public  office  and  states  that  the candidate has served a prison term for embezzlement. The  statement  is  true,  and  the  newspaper’s  reason  for printing it is the belief in the public’s right to know, or the  “public  good.”  The  candidate’s  history,  in  this instance,  would  give  reasonable  doubt  of  his qualifications for public office. If,  however,  the  same  statement  had  been  made about  a  private  citizen  who  was  in  no  way  connected with the public welfare, there would have been no “good reason” for publishing that information. FAIR  COMMENT  AND  CRITICISM.—   A publisher  can  claim  the  fair  comment  and  criticism defense in many instances. The courts are often lenient when fair comment or criticism is made of a political organization or any powerful corporation; in reviews of television  programs,  movies,  plays  and  books;  or  in articles  dealing  with  officials  or  agencies  of  the  U.S. government. It has been established that one of the chief functions of the news media is to serve as a critic of the wielders of public or private power. The courts reason that this function should not be arbitrarily suppressed. Many  newspapers  engage  in  “crusades”  against  a dishonest or bungling government and against crooked gambling  or  other  criminal  activities.  As  long  as  a newspaper approaches such a “crusade” in a responsible manner, it is well within its rights. Every year Pulitzer Prizes are given to individual reporters for either having exposed private or public abuses of power, and in some cases,  having  caused  their  confections. PRIVILEGE.—   Privilege,  as  a  defense  against libel,  deals  with  legislative  and  judicial  operations. There  are  two  kinds  of  privilege.  One  is  “absolute privilege”; the other is “qualified privilege.” Absolute Privilege.—  Absolute  privilege  protects those directly involved in judicial proceedings (judges, attorneys  and  witnesses)  and  legislative  matters  (the President,  governors,  mayors  and  lawmakers  at  the federal, state, county and city levels). Absolute privilege does not apply to the news media. Qualified  Privilege.—  Qualified  privilege  does apply to the news media and affords them qualified, or conditional, protection in reporting public and official proceedings. The conditions for this protection are that a story must be characterized as follows: 1. Fair, accurate and complete 2.  Without  malice 3. Published for justifiable ends The one limitation of qualified privilege is that a story must not include any obscenity. Other than that, legislative and judicial proceedings may be reported in their entirety, regardless of the truth or falseness of what is said. The legal theory supporting this license holds that  the  public  interest  in  public  matters  should  be served, even at the expense of individual defamation. Remember,  however,  that  this  privilege  does  not cover   the   reporting   of   conventions   of   private organizations, such as political parties, labor unions and churches. LACK  OF  PUBLICATION.—  Lack  of  publica- tion as a complete defense is more likely to be used in a libel   case   involving   some   form   of   personal communication that may or may not have been seen by a single third party. This defense could hardly serve the 10-6