Patently Predictable

At the end of September, the New York Times ran a big story ($) on Marshall, Texas, which it tagged as a hotbed of patent litigation. The story had all the elements of earlier media coverage of "judicial hellholes," where allegedly plaintiff-friendly juries and judges in small, out of the way places slam innocent corporations with multi-million dollar verdicts. Naturally, the stories always purport to show why more restrictions on lawsuits are needed.

Stories like these usually herald the beginning of a major new legal reform lobbying effort by corporate defendants. So I wasn't too surprised to learn that a group of big corporations recently launched the Coalition for Patent Fairness to attack "abusive patent litigation." According to Intellectual Property Watch, the coalition recently hired a slew of high-powered tort reform lobbyists to push federal legislation that would cap damages and force losing parties to pay the other side's legal bills in patent lawsuits, among other things. The Times story, along with a spate of others on Marshall, Texas, was their handiwork.

As a journalist, I'm a bit torn about this kind of media manipulation. On one hand, the Marshall, Texas story is clearly being sold by people with an agenda, and as a result, some of the facts are vastly out of context. For instance, the paper reports on the size of a jury verdict without explaining in detail the damages at issue. On the other hand, there is legitimate news there. What's a reporter to do?

I think full disclosure is probably in order. Reporters should identify the source of their tips so readers understand all the agendas at work. People will appreciate the transparency, and hopefully, the elected officials at whom the stories are targeted will also judge them accordingly.

Comments

[Wave Maker]

Curious suggestion for a "journalist" to make. And there's no "agenda" at work with you, is there.