Media culpa.

• Author: Overton, Sharon
• Position: Dealing with negative publicity

It used to be that the best way to deal with negative publicity was to treat it like a bad case of poison ivy: Ignore it and hope it goes away.

According to conventional wisdom, it was impossible to fight the media. Big newspapers and TV networks had deep pockets and the First Amendment to back them up. Complaining about bad press kept the story alive, like scratching the rash and making the itch worse.

But many businesses and public figures no longer seem willing to suffer in silence. Consider Food Lion's fierce response to damaging allegations by ABC's PrimeTime Live. The Salisbury-based grocery chain is suing the network, accusing it of fraudulently obtaining videotape to support its claim that Food Lion employees doctored bad meat.

More recently, ABC News' allegation that the tobacco industry "spiked" cigarettes with extra nicotine sparked a $10 billion libel action from Philip Morris Co. ABC stands by its report. But a similar suit brought last year by General Motors prompted NBC to offer a quick settlement and an on-air apology for faking a fire in a Dateline segment on truck safety. Dateline also was the target of an $8 million lawsuit filed in August by Greensboro's Southeastern Eye Clinic, which contended that the program falsely accused its doctors of scheduling unnecessary cataract surgery.

Southeastern dropped its suit in October, evidence, perhaps, of the difficulty of winning these cases. But winning may be beside the point. By suing, companies defend themselves against negative publicity. Ultimately, they hope that the threat of expensive litigation may persuade an otherwise reluctant news organization to retract an unfair or misleading report.

In the case of Southeastern Eye Clinic vs. NBC, both sides claim victory. The network defended the "factual accuracy" of its story but corrected the impression that Southeastern's doctors encouraged unnecessary procedures. Southeastern says its business has returned to normal after falling 30%.

The networks aren't the only ones being accused of false or misleading reporting. In August, The News & Observer of Raleigh ran a story-length retraction of an article about a local businessman trying to revive the classic Indian motorcycle. Among other inaccuracies, the original story stated that federal regulators had issued warnings to potential investors. The paper later said warnings were never made.

In July 1993, The Charlotte Observer corrected a story concerning public-improvement...