The case against litigation journalism.

• Author: Gorney, Carole M.

When A Florida widower claimed on CNN'S "Larry King Live" (Jan. 21, 1993) that his wife had died from a brain tumor caused by her cellular telephone, he was advancing a deliberate, wellplanned legal strategy called "litigation journalism." So were the lawyers and plaintiffs involved in "Waiting to Explode?," ethically embarrassing "expose" of General Motors' C/K pickup trucks aired on "Dateline NBC" (Nov. 17, 1992). The same applies to the two student plaintiffs appearing on "Good Morning America" (Feb. 26, 1993) to discuss why they were suing the Denny's restaurant chain for racial discrimination.

All these plaintiffs and their attorneys were given free air time to argue their cases, relatively unchallenged, in the court of public opinion. These are not isolated instances. In a frantic search for programming, such litigation entertainment is scheduled regularly on electronic news magazines and talk shows.

In the guise of news and public affairs interviewing, the moderator is elevated to the role of judge. The audience is invited to serve as jury, rendering instant "verdicts" that may have serious consequences. At stake are personal and corporate reputations, public fear, and lots of money. Even more critical is the threat that such exercises pose to the system of legal due process.

Litigation journalism is a trend which represents a symbiotic relationship that meets both the needs of the media and those of trial lawyers and their clients. As cable channels have proliferated - giving rise to independent news networks such as CNN and the seemingly endless stream of daily syndicated talk shows - competition for topics and guests has become fierce. Throw in competition from movies that stimulate an ever-growing public appetite for action and drama, and a breeding ground for litigation journalism has been created. It was spawned and is nurtured in a "sue-crazy" environment in which trial lawyers are seeking ways to generate public sympathy for their clients, create favorable environments of public opinion for class-action suits, apply pressure on defendants to settle of court, and influence juries when their clients' lawsuits make it to trial.

Because of the contingency fee system, plaintiffs have nothing to lose financially by filing lawsuits. They don't have to pay unless they win, and judges do not require them to pay the court costs and attorney's fees of the defendant if they lose. While the contingency system is an advantage to hardship...