Can You Sue Over Mistakes or Exaggerations in a Media Report

My question involves defamation in the state of: Texas

There is a man that has been accused of terrorist threat and arrested. The school district has said a bunch of things that were not true to the media, and we know how the media behaves. Some of the statements were " he used a gun", "ordered us face down on the ground. He acted in a rogue manner."
His employer has him on admin leave, and really has screwed his family over.
Does it even sound like he has a case? If so, please advise.
I thank you in advance. JW

How could we possibly know if he has a case - when we don't know what actually happened? If he was actually arrested on a threat charge, then apparently police found probable cause to make the arrest - so SOMETHING happened.

Ol Ronny boy walking in to school and giving them a demonstration of how poor their security is, was the reason he is on admin leave. He cannot be the most balanced person to do something so foolish. It is only logical it has an effect on his family.

We're talking about this guy?

An incident like that is newsworthy, so it's the type of incident we expect the media to cover.

The defendant's conduct makes him an involuntary public figure. A voluntary public figure, such as an actor, seeks out the spotlight. An involuntary public figure, sometimes for reasons entirely outside of his control, gains a similar type of notoriety - but whether voluntary or involuntary, media coverage of public figures falls under the "Times v. Sullivan" standard of "actual malice": To prevail in a defamation case the public figure must prove either that the media company made the report knowing that its content was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Media companies have developed a wide range of techniques to avoid violating that standard. "Witnesses report...", "According to the police...", "The New York Times reports...." While passing on a defamatory statement is not normally a defense, the newsworthiness makes it defensible even if it later turns out that the early reports were confused, misleading, or even false. Whether a case can be made depends upon a thorough analysis of the actual facts and actual news reports.

Statements like "he acted in a rogue manner" are matters of opinion and are generally not actionable.

There is also the issue of damages. When somebody makes a fool of himself in public, "I'm not as much of a fool as the media made out" isn't likely to result in an appreciable award of damages.

JeffWalker, if you ARE referring to the Texas man whose story is linked in the post above by Mr. Knowitall, the man was arrested and charged with terrorist threats and there are very few facts about the incident that are in dispute. If a story that is published is substantially true - if the gist or sting of the story is substantially the same with or without the inaccuracies - the errors in the reporting of the story will not be enough to support a claim of defamation against the media.

You can compare the Texas man's situation, and the stories told to and published by the press in Texas, to the situation Richard Jewell found himself in after the Olympic bombing in Atlanta. In the Jewell case, he was vilified by the press and convicted by the public for the bombing and he had nothing to do with it. After the FBI exonerated him completely, Jewell filed defamation claims against the New York Post, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Cox Enterprises) and NBC for using unreliable sources, not checking facts, and publishing defamatory untruths, and he filed a claim against Piedmont College, its President and spokesperson for providing false and defamatory information about him to the media, which then published it without verification. All but one claim was settled in Jewell's favor before his death.

The Texas man will have a difficult time arguing that the few false facts published about the incident have defamed him more than his own indisputable actions have. He can certainly have an attorney in his area review the coverage, however. It is possible (if not probable) that he can find evidence enough to file an action against those who slandered him to the press, this after the criminal charges against him are resolved.

Quote:

---

Does it even sound like he has a case?

---

Who are you in all this?

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Who are you in all this?

---

Someone who's been seriously misled by the perp.

The quotes from the Super are also not correct. And yes, we are talking about "that guy."
He didn't do half of what the media reports. IF the media had access to the truth, and spun it out of control, this guy is doomed.

And yet you admit that you don't really know what happened. So why should we take your word for whether the media is correct or not?

Actually, I was there. Saw the whole thing. I don't undetstand w.hy he was arrested for asking a question.