Comments on: The rise of single-serving libel insurance: If it’s good enough for bloggers, why not small newsrooms?

By: RS

RS — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:02 +0000

From what I can tell, it’s not available to small newsrooms, just to individuals. But I could be wrong.

By: Michael Andersen

Michael Andersen — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:32:48 +0000

Addendum: I just came across this policy from the National Association of Press Women, which is restricted to “professional[s] working in the press or a related industry for a minimum of three years,” which seems to offer broader coverage than the Axis Pro package, for a lower premium: $435.

From what I can tell, it’s not available to small newsrooms, just to individuals. But I could be wrong.

http://www.walterry.com/national.php

By: The big hurt (someday, maybe) coming for journalists « Digi-Docket

The big hurt (someday, maybe) coming for journalists « Digi-Docket — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:14:40 +0000

[...] small, new-media outlets (on this point, also see the discussion at Harvard’s Nieman Lab of single-serving libel protection for smaller publications*). Were American journalists to suddenly confront libel law less protective of themselves than they [...]

By: Fallon O'Brien

Fallon O'Brien — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:40:36 +0000

I wonder if Rick Fenstermacher could tell us the risk involved in running a fraudulent charitable organization??? Now on a side note…. Let’s everyone analyze the foundation that little ricky boy is running with Lois Pope for the last 10 years collecting over $60 million. What have they done with all that money??? Go to http://www.wheresthemoneylois.com and find out.

By: Need a lawyer? New network gives web publishers a line of defense » Nieman Journalism Lab

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:02:26 +0000

[...] when nitty-gritty decisions need to be made. There’s accounting, taxes, incorporation, insurance — and that’s the clear stuff. Toss in murky issues around trademark and branding and [...]

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:46:10 +0000

Actually, Michael, I think Steve was even more wrong than you realize. If you don’t have any libel insurance, you’ll be afraid to risk a libel suit (even a winnable one). Thus, you’ll be less likely to say damaging but true things about a wealthy or litigious person. Any First Amendment lawyer is familiar with the concept of potential litigation exhibiting a ‘chilling effect.’

By: Michael Andersen

Michael Andersen — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:38:54 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve, but I think you may have misread my intention. I’m not arguing that having libel insurance makes you a better journalist. I’m arguing that *proving you’re insurable* will be one of the indicators of how seriously you take your journalism.

I’ve read my Philip Meyer; as mainstream media continues to weaken, indicators like this one are going to be an increasingly important way to demonstrate one’s influence.

I’m not making a point about the reliability itself, but about the appearance of reliability.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:03:25 +0000

That’s nonsense to say that a organization would be more trustworthy (or even appear to be) simply because they have libel insurance. That’s like saying I’m a better journalist than you because I take notes with a Macbook while you can only afford a pen.

If anything, a company that feels the need to buy insurance has more incentive to be reckless with the truth.