-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
In a South Dakota courtroom, ABC News will defend a series of stories it reported five years ago in a defamation1 lawsuit2. Jury selection started today. It's a trial that could prove to be a measure of public attitudes toward the media.
Back in 2012, ABC correspondent Jim Avila reported on a practice of a South-Dakota-based company called Beef Products Inc. To lower the fat content of its ground beef, the company added something it called finely textured3 beef product made from the trimmings of the cow after it was butchered.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JIM AVILA: Seventy percent of the ground beef we buy at the supermarket contains something he calls pink slime.
SIEGEL: In that clip from the original reporting, Avila used the name for this substance that a former USDA scientist have given it - pink slime. And while ABC pointed4 out in their stories that the addition of pink slime was common and not unsafe to eat, it wasn't labeled.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
AVILA: The USDA is clear in saying pink slime is safe.
SIEGEL: Beef Product Inc. says sudden public awareness5 of something with such an unappetizing name cost them business and lead to plant closures and job losses. And in 2012, the company brought the suit that's now just coming to trial.
Well, joining us to talk about this case is Jane Kirtley. She's the director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics6 and Law at the University of Minnesota. Welcome to the program.
JANE KIRTLEY: Thank you.
SIEGEL: What does the company Beef Products Inc. have to show in court to win a defamation judgment7 against ABC News?
KIRTLEY: If what they're suing under is the agricultural disparagement8 law in South Dakota, they have to prove that ABC said that the beef product was unsafe to consume. If it's a common garden-variety libel case, they have to prove that what was published about them was false. And moreover, they have to show that ABC acted with what is called actual malice9.
SIEGEL: And is the company bringing its action under both laws?
KIRTLEY: It is suing under everything under the sun - product disparagement, interference with business operations and a variety of other claims.
SIEGEL: Can Beef Product Inc. argue successfully that by being the only company that was described doing this even though it was done by many other companies, that that constituted defamation in some way?
KIRTLEY: One of the questions about the agricultural disparagement law is whether it deals with the company or with the product itself. BPI has claimed that essentially10 what ABC has said is that they were complicit in mislabeling or not labeling when it was included in beef that was sold to consumers in grocery stores and so forth11.
SIEGEL: This case reminds one of Bismarck's line that people who want to savor12 either one shouldn't watch the process of making either sausage or laws. Making beef can look pretty ugly here. Is that essentially the essence of the lawsuit?
KIRTLEY: ABC actually did some reporting at BPI and showed what it characterized as a pristine13 plant with pristine processes. But the mere14 use of the phrase pink slime was something that captured the public imagination and I think frankly15 escalated16 the ick factor.
SIEGEL: This case comes to trial at a time when the so-called mainstream17 media, which would include ABC News, are routinely attacked for purveying18 fake news. And the president of the United States complains about lax libel laws. Is it possible that this case could possibly move the standard for defamation?
KIRTLEY: Well, it's only a trial decision at this point. So of course it would have no precedential value. But I do think it's a bellwether19 in the sense that it raises two very critical issues. One is that BPI claims that ABC was basically on a disinformation campaign, which is another way of saying fake news.
The other issue I think goes to the heart of what the media are supposed to be doing, which is informing the public about things that might be matters of interest to them but which corporate20 America may not be interested in sharing with them. And I think that was ABC's justification21 for doing this story - simply to let people know that the substance was in their ground beef.
SIEGEL: Professor Kirtley, thank you very much for talking with us today.
KIRTLEY: Thank you.
SIEGEL: Professor Jane Kirtley of the University of Minnesota.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE BETA BAND SONG, "B+A")
1 defamation | |
n.诽谤;中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 lawsuit | |
n.诉讼,控诉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 textured | |
adj.手摸时有感觉的, 有织纹的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 awareness | |
n.意识,觉悟,懂事,明智 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 disparagement | |
n.轻视,轻蔑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 malice | |
n.恶意,怨恨,蓄意;[律]预谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 savor | |
vt.品尝,欣赏;n.味道,风味;情趣,趣味 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 pristine | |
adj.原来的,古时的,原始的,纯净的,无垢的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 escalated | |
v.(使)逐步升级( escalate的过去式和过去分词 );(使)逐步扩大;(使)更高;(使)更大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 mainstream | |
n.(思想或行为的)主流;adj.主流的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 purveying | |
v.提供,供应( purvey的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 bellwether | |
n.系铃的公羊,前导,领导者,群众的首领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 corporate | |
adj.共同的,全体的;公司的,企业的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|