NORMAN, Oklahoma – A recent $25 million libel verdict against the Gannett-owned Oklahoman has left media and legal experts puzzled. The jury awarded damages to announcer Scott Sapulpa after the newspaper misidentified him as the person responsible for a racist rant during a state girls’ basketball tournament three years ago. The large sum of money awarded has raised questions about the jury’s decision.
Norman attorney Stan Ward expressed concerns that the jury may have exceeded the legal boundaries with their significant damages award. Oklahoma does not impose a limit on jury awards for defamation cases, which has led to occasional runaway verdicts. However, Ward emphasized that this case may not withstand appeal.
Robert Kerr, a journalism professor at the University of Oklahoma, was shocked by the amount of money awarded to Sapulpa. With his background in the newspaper industry, Kerr acknowledged the challenges of this media case but believed there was a good chance the judgment would be reduced on appeal.
During a two-week trial in February, the Oklahoman admitted its mistake in attributing the racist comments to Sapulpa on its website. The article was only taken down after receiving complaints and realizing they had identified the wrong announcer. It was later revealed that the offensive comments were made by Matt Rowan, the other announcer broadcasting the tournament. Rowan, who owned the sports streaming service, blamed his behavior on his diabetic condition.
Sapulpa, a former high school coach and teacher, was awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. Attorney Ward explained that the purpose of punitive damages is to deter defamation and serve as a warning to others. In this case, the jury applied an actual malice finding, usually reserved for public figures, against the newspaper and its parent company, Gannett.
Gannett, in response to the verdict, stated that Sapulpa’s claims of actual malice and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not supported by evidence presented in the trial. They argued that there was no awareness of the false information reported or any intention to harm Sapulpa. However, Sapulpa testified about the negative impact the misidentification had on his reputation, work opportunities, and his family’s safety.
The portrayal of Gannett as a large media corporation facing a small-town plaintiff in an emotional battle may not hold much weight in the appeals courts. The focus will likely be on reviewing the legal aspects of the judgment. Gannett assured that any damages awarded by the appellate courts would be covered by their libel insurance and would not have a significant impact on their financials or liquidity.
While the damages awarded have caused a slight drop in Gannett’s stock price, the outcome of the appeal remains uncertain.