A jury has awarded $25 million in damages against a newspaper chain over its erroneous report that a sports announcer used a racial slur and expressed hostility to black players who kneeled during the national anthem. $5 million of the $25 million awarded for libel was compensatory damages, while the remaining $20 million was punitive damages.
CBS News reported on the February 5 verdict in Sapulpa v. Gannett Co.:
The incident occurred in 2021 before the Norman-Midwest City girls high school basketball game when an announcer for a livestream cursed and called one team by a racial epithet as the players kneeled during the national anthem.
The broadcasters told their listeners on the livestream that they would return after a break. Then one, apparently not realizing the audio was still live, said: “They’re kneeling? (Expletive) them,” one of the men said. “I hope Norman gets their ass kicked … (Expletive) (epithet).”
Sapulpa, one of two announcers, was initially identified by the newspaper as the person who made the racist comment…. Matt Rowan, the owner and operator of the streaming service, later told The Oklahoman he was the person who made the remarks….
Jay Connor of The Root describes the epithets in question as the words “fucking niggers.” Gannett, which owns the newspaper that contained the erroneous report, issued a statement:
There was no evidence presented to the jury that The Oklahoman acted with any awareness that what was reported was false or with any intention to harm the plaintiff in this case. Gannett intends to seek an appellate review of the case.
The announcer was not a public figure, at least not under rulings like this recent ruling from the South Carolina Supreme Court, which ruled that a well-known high school football coach covered by the media was not a “public figure.”
Given that the plaintiff wasn’t a public figure, the newspaper chain could be liable for the $5 million in compensatory damages even if it was only negligent, not reckless or malicious. However, the $20 million punitive damages award would require evidence that it knew the statement was false (or at least was likely false). The court complaint in the case is at this link.
