1. A. Lewis, New York Times v. Sullivan Reconsidered , 83 Columbia Law Review 603 (1983).

2. F. Schauer, Public Figures , 25 William and Mary Law Review 905, 911-12 (1984); St. Amant v. Thompson , 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc ., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); D. Robertson, Defamation and the First Amendment , 54 Texas Law Review 199 (1976) (Gertz necessary to check press power); D. Anderson, A Response to Professor Robertson: The Issue Is Control of Press Power , 54 Texas Law Review 271 (1976).

3. Lewis, New York Times v. Sullivan Reconsidered; H. Johnston and H. Kaufman, "Annenberg, Sullivan at Twenty-Five and the Question of Libel Reform," 7 Communications Lawyer 3 (Winter 1989).

4. Bose Corporation v. Consumers Union , 466 U.S. 485 (1984); Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps , 475 U.S. 767 (1986); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

5. Edwards v. National Audubon Society , 556 F.2d 113, 120 (2d Cir. 1977); Ollman v. Evans , 750 F.2d 970, 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (concurring); Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co ., 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2706 (1990).

6. L. Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 865 (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 2d ed. 1988); R. Epstein, Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong? 53 University of Chicago Law Review 782 (1986); Lewis, New York Times v. Sullivan Reconsidered . break

7. B. Brewin and S. Shaw, VIETNAM ON TRIAL (New York: Atheneum, 1987); R. Adler, RECKLESS DISREGARD (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986); R. Smolla, SUING THE PRESS 182-237 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Tavoulareas v. Piro , 817 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en bane), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987); J. Soloski, The Study and the Libel Plaintiff , 71 Iowa Law Review 217, 219 (1985).

8. M. Newcity, Libel Law Then and Now , 1989 Wisconsin Law Review 359, 362, 379-82.

9. R. Bezanson, G. Cranberg, and J. Soloski, LIBEL LAW AND THE PRESS (New York: Free Press, 1987); M. Franklin, Winners and Losers and Why , 1980 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 455; M. Franklin, Suing the Media for Libel , 1981 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 797.

10. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 7-11.

11. Soloski, The Study at 219; Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 13-15. Franklin, in his sample, found that public officials were more often accused of crime than incompetence ( Suing the Media for Libel at 812-13).

12. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBLE LAW at 15-17.

13. Id. at 21-28.

14. Id. at 30-53; Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 187; G. Cranberg, Fanning the Fire , 71 Iowa Law Review 221, 223, 224 (1985).

15. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 55-77.

16. Id. at 77, 58-59; Franklin, Suing the Media for Libel at 801-02.

17. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 133-34, 144-46.

18. Id. at 179; Franklin, Suing the Media for Libel at 829. Tavoulareas is quoted in Smolla, Suing the Press at 256.

19. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 129-30.

20. Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 184-85; Herbert v. Lando , 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979).

21. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 142-44. Robert Post's brilliant and sophisticated article, The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution , 74 California Law Review 691 (1986), illustrates that the dignity component of reputation is quite capable of explaining much of the jury behavior.

22. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBLE LAW at 178, 153, 289 n. 131; Franklin, Winners and Losers and Why at 473; Franklin, Suing the Media for Libel at 805.

23. Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, LIBEL LAW at 3, 199 (quoting Robert Sack).

24. D. Anderson, The Case for Libel Reform (forthcoming).

25. Gertz , 418 U.S. at 329; 680 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1982). break

26. Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders , 472 U.S. 749 (1985).

27. Pring v. Penthouse , 695 F.2d 438 (10th Cir. 1982); Smolla, Suing the Press 162-64.

28. Tavoulareas; Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 182-97.

29. Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U.S. 448 (1976).

30. Green v. Alton Telegraph Printing Co ., 107 Ill. App. 3d 755, 438 N.E.2d 201 (1982); Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 74.

31. Othello , act 3, sc. 3, lines 155-61; Post, Social Foundations of Defamation Law; Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 8-9, 13, 14-25; W. Van Alstyne, First Amendment Limitations on Recovery from the Press , 25 William and Mary Law Review 793, 794-95 (1984); M. Franklin, A Critique of Libel Law , 18 University of San Francisco Law Review 1, 9 (1983).

32. Anderson, Case for Libel Reform; D. Laycock, MODERN AMERICAN REMEDIES 591-613 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1985).

33. Anderson, Case for Libel Reform .

34. Herbert v. Lando , 568 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1977).

35. Herbert v. Lando , 441 U.S. 153 (1979); G. Cranberg, "Libel Judges Are Setting the Standards for the Press," Washington journalism Review , September 1989 at 41; M. Franklin, Reflections on Herbert v. Lando , 31 Stanford Law Review 1065 (1979); W. Brennan, Address , 32 Rutgers Law Review 173, 179-81 (1979).

36. J. Lubell quoted in a Mobil Corp. advertisement. New York Times , September 25, 1983, at 25; R. Cunningham, The Eight Most Common Complaints , Editor and Publisher, March 19, 1983, at 40; Anderson, Case for Libel Reform .

37. Schauer, Public Figures at 927.

38. Id. at 927 n. 100. For a contrast, even if overstated, with Schauer's optimism about press behavior, see M. Hertsgaard, ON BENDED KNEE: THE PRESS AND THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1988).

39. A. France, THE RED LILY 75 (W. Stephens, trans.) (London: John Lane, 1924).

40. S. Brill, American Lawyer July/August 1985 at 33; Johnston and Kaufman, "Libel Reform" at 8.

41. B. Fein, NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN: AN OBSTACLE TO ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PEOPLE (WASHINGTON D.C.: AMERICAN LEGAL FOUNDATION, 1984); M. FRANKLIN, What Does "Negligence" Mean in Defamation Cases? 6 Comm/Ent Law Journal 259 (1984); M. Franklin, Public Officials and Libel , 5 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 51, 66-69 (1986). break

42. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia , 403 U.S. 29, 62 (Harlan, dissenting), 78 (Marshall, dissenting) (1971).

43. D. Anderson, Reputation, Compensation and Proof , 25 William and Mary Law Review 747 (1984); Aware, Inc. v. Faulk , 14 N.Y.2d 899, 252 N.YS.2d 95, 200 N.E.2d 778 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 916 (1965); J. Faulk, FEAR ON TRIAL (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983).

44. Anderson, Case for Libel Reform; L. Forer, A CHILLING EFFECT (New York: Norton, 1987); Faulk .

45. Smolla, SUING THE PRESS at 242; Van Alstyne, Limitations on Recovery from the Press at 803—09; F. Abrams, "Why We Should Change the Libel Law," New York Times Magazine , September 29, 1985, at 34, 93; Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc ., 109 S. Ct. 2909 (1989).

46. Most of the Winter 1989 issue of Communications Lawyer is given over to discussions of the proposal.

47. Cranberg, "Libel Judges Are Setting Standards for the Press," Washington Journalism Review , September 1989 at 42, 44.

48. Johnston and Kaufman, "Libel Reform" at 4; E. Roberts, "When Freedom of Expression Becomes a Financial Burden," remarks on receiving the John Peter Zenger award, November 13, 1987, quoted in H. Nelson, D. Teeter, and D. Le Duc, LAW OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS at 143 (Westbury, N.Y: Foundation Press, 6th ed. 1989); Bezanson, Cranberg, and Soloski, libel law at 49:"Attend a meeting of editors and chances are you will hear complaints, accompanied by nods of approval from colleagues who had similar experiences, about how the editors were misquoted in their own papers. Studies of press credibility by journalism groups invariably concluded that inaccuracy and unfairness are major parts of the credibility problem."

49. M. Franklin, A Declaratory Judgment Alternative to Current Libel Law , 74 California Law Review 809 (1986). Franklin proposes some delicate fee-shifting arrangements whereby the prevailing party would receive reasonable attorneys' fees, subject to several exceptions that appear intended to swallow the rule. The key exception would preclude the awarding of attorneys' fees to a successful defendant where plaintiff brought the action with a reasonable chance of success and attempted (prior to the suit) to present evidence to the defendant that the statement it published was false.

50. Anderson, Case for Libel Reform .

51. Gertz , 418 U.S. at 340-41; Greenmoss Builders , 472 U.S. at 757-61. break

52. Brewin and Shaw, VIETNAM ON TRIAL 90-91; Chicago Tribune , February 19, 1989.

53. Franklin, Declaratory Judgment Alternative at 828.

54. New York Times , December 18, 1983; Brewin and Shaw, VIETNAM ON TRAIL at 314, 352-53.