40

Friday, February 1, 1985

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

PP NG

ew York — No sooner
had the jury in the Ariel Sharon
vs. Time, Inc., libel trial an-
nounced its verdict last week dis-
missing Sharon's claim that the
magazine had libeled him than
both sides began loudly proclaim-
ing victory.
Ironically, considering the final
outcome, Sharon seemed to emerge
from the ten-week trial with his
image and political position consi-
derably enhanced, whereas Time
sustained distinct damage to its
reputation for fairness and quali-
ty journalism.
There was, in fact, considerable
speculation among journalists
covering the trial that Sharon
may have been relieved that the
jury found that he had not suc-
ceeded in proving that Time acted
out of actual malice in publishing
its report about his alleged discus-
sion of revenge with Phalangist
leaders.
If the jury had ruled in Sharon's
favor on the malice issue, as it did
in deciding the week before that
Time story was both defamatory
and false, the trial would have
moved to the final phase, in which
the jury would have listened to 18
witnesses from both sides who
would have been called to give tes-
timony about Sharon's reputa-
tion.
The jury would then have had
to decide whether or not the form-
er Defense Minister's reputation
had been damaged badly enough
by Time's article that he ought to
be awarded monetary damages by
the magazine.
Since Sharon, who is presently
Minister of Industry and Trade,
has been under intense criticism
for spending so much time away
from the country at a time when
the Israeli economy is in crisis, he
may have welcomed not having to
sit through another phase of the
trial which would have kept him
in New York for another two to
three weeks.
He may also not have been look-
ing forward to the testimony on
his reputation by Israeli witnesses
Time was planning to call such as
Nachum Barnea, the respected
editor of the Israeli weekly Koter-
et Reshit. According to sources,
Barnea and other witnesses
were expected to testify about lit-
tle publiciied excesses against
Arab civilians carried out by the
Israeli counter-terrorist Unit 101,
which was under Sharon's com-
mand in the early 1950s.
Since Sharon had already pro-
mised that he would use any mon-
ey he won in the trial to set up an
"anti-libel fund" for Jews and
Israelis, and since most of his
legal costs had already been ab-

Walter Ruby covered the trial for
the Long Island Jewish World
and the Jerusalem Post.

sorbed by a group of wealthy
American Jewish supporters, he
had little personal motivation to
continue the trial in order to col-
lect damages. There seemed to be
every reason to believe Sharon
when he announced after winning
the verdict on falsity, "We have
now accomplished everything we
set out to accomplish when we
came here."
Time's top editors, on the other
hand, may well have felt some re-
gret that they won on the malice
issue, since in ending the trial the
verdict also ended any chance of
Time appealing to a higher court
to reverse the jury's earlier rulings
that the magazine's story was de-
famatory and false.
In the days preceding the ver-
dict, Time had repeatedly pro-
mised that if it lost, it would take
the case to the Court of Appeals
and if necessary to the Supreme
Court on the grounds that it had
been denied "due process" by the
Israeli government's refusal to
make available all witnesses and
documents the magazine believed
were relevent to the case.
In a statement issued after the
verdict that seemed strangely in-
appropriate for the winning par-
ty in the suit, Time termed the -
case "a half trial...[which] should
never have reached an American
courtroom." According to the
statement, "Mr. Sharon present-
ed his case — Time could not pre-
sent a significant portion of its
case. Time believes that on these
grounds alone it would have won
on appeal."
Times's top staffers may have
felt some relief that the verdict
had finally put an end to the pro-
longed and expensive legal pro-
ceeding (although Sharon later an-
nounced plans to renew his suit
against Time in Israel). Yet
whatever satisfaction they found
in the verdict was undoubtedly
greatly reduced by the accompa-
nying highly unusual statement
by the jury that "certain Time
employees, particularly correspon-
dent David Halevy, acted negli-
gently and carelessly in reporting
and verifying the information...
Revealing just how concerned
they were that the findings of the
jury might have a long term dam-
aging impact on Time's credibili-
ty with its readership and with the
journalistic community, Time's
editor-in-chief Henry Grunwald
and managing editor Ray Cave
appeared on PBS' MacNeil-Lehrer
Report and ABC's "Nightline" re-
spectively to argue that Time had
been defending not only its own
reputation in the case, but also
freedom of expression for the en-
tire fourth estate.
According to the Time state-
ment, "We remain very concern-
ed about the pernicious effect libel
cases such as this are having on
First Amendment rights of the

"

There were winners and losers
in the Sharon libel trial,
but they weren't necessarily
who you think they are.

BY WALTER RUBY

Special to The Jewish News

Attorney Milton Gould, left, and Ariel Sharon discuss the case with reporters outside the court house.

American press. If Sharon had
won his suit, the press would have
had to think twice before printing
something critical about any for-
eign politician whose government
is able to control access to the
media."
Unfortunately for the newsmag-
azine, however, much of the press
seemed to be rushing to separate
their own reporting practices from
those employed by Time in its
1983 cover story "The Verdict is
Guilty" that led to the suit by
Sharon. For example, the New
York Times editorialized that the
"salutory and constructive" ver-
dict "affirms the law's special pro-
tection for a free press — but also
underscores the obligations that
the media bear."
According to the Times, "The
jury found an absence of malice,
but no shortage of arrogance. It

seemed to give voice to wide-
spread discontent with influential
media that are quick to dish out
criticism but unwilling or reluc-
tant to present a contrary judg-
ment or to confess error."
"If after studying the reporting,
writing, and editing routines at
Time, jurors find them careless
and negligent, it's time for jour-
nalists to stop muting their criti-
cism of each other."
If Time departed the courtroom
arena much tarnished in spite of
its technical victory, Sharon ap-
peared much strengthened, espe-
cially in terms of his political stan-
ding in Israel.
While Sharon may have failed
to prove that Time acted out of
malice, the jury's earlier ruling
that the magazine's story was
false is likely to have a major im-
pact in Sharon's favor as he strug-

gles to achieve his long-sought
goal of becoming Israel's Prime
Minister.
Even before Sharon won the ril-
ing on falsity, Mark Segal of the
Jerusalem Post reported from
Israel that supporters of Sharon
in Rehovot had taken over the He-
rut party machinery in that town.
According to Segal, ."[Herut] in-
siders claim that Sharon's men are
gaining ground in their grand de-
sign to conquer the party at a
grass roots level. Their success...is
partly due to the fact that so
many Herut members feel 'or-
phaned' and long for a father
figure to fill the emotional void
left by Menachem Begin."
Indeed, Begin broke his long si-
lence last week to announce that
Sharon was the "absolute moral
victor" in the trial and to stress
the opinion that "the question of

