Statistically speaking, do tabloids fare better in law suits than the people they smear/libel? I’m not sure whether laws vary from state to state in the US with regard to libel by the gutter press, but they probably do from county to country. I remember reading about a popular defence that tabloids are just entertainer and allowed to exaggerate or lie. That may be oversimplified. I hope someone can give me an overview of how the Enquirer in the US and perhaps Mail on Sunday in the UK fare in libel cases. I look forward to your feedback
Having read A Wild Hog Ate My Baby ( a book about tabloids in general with special focus on the National Enquirer), I’ve noted a few things.
For a long time, suing tabloids was considered ‘beneath’ celebrities. They simply didn’t do it.
The book also mentions that under US law, you can’t slander the dead. A living target can sue you. A dead celebrity is fair game.
Finally, the best tabloids are expert trolls. They know exactly how far they can go and not be liable.
OTTOMH I remember Liberace suing a tabloid for saying he was gay. He sought millions in damages. He settled for something like 1% of what he originally wanted.
So, I’d say the tabloids come out ahead financially.
He never said he had AIDS. Indeed, he prevailed on his doctor to list his cause of death as heart disease, never mentioning AIDS. It was the autopsy by the County Coroner, against the wishes of Liberace’s doctor, that noted the AIDS cause.
And neither of the 2 tabloids that he had won awards from ever seriously asked for their money back. They could have filed a legal claim against his estate, but neither did. They just tried to use this for publicity (as tabloids do).
Perhaps the problem is that lawsuits didn’t used to end up settling for millions way back when, especially in Britain. IIRC in 1959 the exchange rate was about $4/£1 so about $32,000 at the time when $5,000 a year was a decent working class wage or the price of a house, so not exactly chump change.
OTOH, there’s this lawsuit over the movie about Rasputin, which supposedly resulted in the famous words added to every subsequent movie, “Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is strictly coincidental.” In those days being raped implied somehow the woman was “damaged goods” so was a blow to her reputation. This is the danger of making movies about relatively recent events where the people involved may still be alive.
As others mention, the requirement for serious damages is to prove actual malice when the action involves public figures. Not only do they have to be wrong, but the plaintiff AFAIK has to prove they knew or should have obviously known it was wrong, and chose to publish anyway knowing it was harmful. Barbara Streisand in her old age invented the Streisand Effect, which before then every celebrity already knew - by making a stink and suing, you draw attention to something that probably would have just caused minor ripples and been forgotten.
(Also, IIRC, it was reporting by newspapers like the Enquirer that drew attention to the Lewinsky scandal and other Clinton peccadilloes when the mainstream press did not want to touch the topic with a 10-foot pole, probably giving such supermarket tabloids since then far more prominent profiles than they used to have.
There’s a recent, pretty good documentary on the rise of the National Enquirer to semi-respectability which is worth a look: Scandalous - Official Trailer - YouTube
To defame someone who’s considered a public figure in the US, actual malice must be shown. This differs from most defamation, which is based on what a reasonable person would know, because actual malice is based on what the person actually knew. And that’s damn difficult. The celebrity would have to show that the tabloid knew they were printing a lie.
Should also point out that British law is far more friendly to those suing for libel or slander, to the point where (IIRC) California declines to enforce British libel judgements. Whenever possible, celebrities like to sue in Britain.
Recall the case of the fellow who was head of the Fomula 1 Racing organization(?). A tabloid exposed his fun sex parties with dominatrix and Nazi themes, IIRC. He sued and won. The main point being - not that it wasn’t true, but that there was no valid reason to publicize his private life. I assume that’s more of an “invasion of privacy” issue than libel, but the point was they published something that harmed his reputation, even though it was true.