Jackson Free Press

Northside Sun publisher Wyatt Emmerich got a few minutes of fame on Nov. 24 when "60 Minutes" used him as the centerpiece interview in an "expose" of "jackpot justice" in Mississippi. Somehow, the state's self-appointed tort-reform sheriff managed to take his smiling tirade against "runaway juries" from the pages of his suburban weekly paper to a national audience. Viewers over in Dodge City or in the Dakota territories might have been shocked to learn that poor little Mississippi is a hotbed of expensive, runaway jackpot justice. Here, crooks line up to sue hogtied corporations to redistribute their wealth, living off their stolen loot. Meanwhile, doctors and pharmacists hang "Closed Forever" signs on their doors because they can't afford their malpractice insurance, leaving babies unborn, bones unset and our values on life support.

The "60 Minutes" segment contained embarrassingly little evidence to back up these claims, some of which sounded suspiciously like they were simply lifted from a recent unnamed sources column by Emmerich. In fact, Jefferson County — a poor, largely black county— has indeed seen more than its share of big tort payouts, but that hasn't spoiled the entire Mississippi barrel. Yes, the tort landscape has needed some tweaks over the years and has gotten some, even before the highly politicized special session held recently at great cost to taxpayers.

But the simple truth is that judges often overturn or reduce large jury awards; the courts, for instance, have only upheld $16 million in punitivie damages in 40 years in Mississippi. For the most part, the civil judge-and-jury system in Mississippi works, and certainly much better than our criminal jury system has over the years.

But all this truth isn't good enough for CBS and the corporate lobbies that pumped millions of dollars into this state to influence state legislation favorably toward protecting big industry from lawsuits (that, in turn, deter negligence and outright chicanery). This gunfight is not about small businesses—a fact that went untouched in the "60 Minutes" piece, which provided only edited snippets of responses from the "trial lobby," rather than, say, reactions from actual Mississippians whose lives are going to be further endangered by "runaway" tort reform. Had CBS asked, we might have suggested that they mention the donations to individual candidates from, say the corporate nursing-home industry—few mom and pops left there anymore—that poured into our officials' coffers over the last year.

The Commercial Appeal reported that one nursing-home group, Caregivers for Patients Rights, gave $200,000 to state officials in recent months. That included $103,000 to Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D-Batesville) since January, $90,000 of it 10 days before he announced the tort-reform special session. They also gave $10,000 to House Speaker Tim Ford (D-Baldwyn) and $20,000 to Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck (R-Maben) this year, according to the Secretary of State's Web site.

Perhaps most naïve is the argument that small pharmacies in the state are closing due to the threat of "jackpot justice." Local drugstores everywhere are quickly becoming as obsolete as saloon girls and dirt streets. Why? Corporate pharmacies are pushing (or buying) them out, often opening nearby first and undercutting prices so that the little guy can't survive. Where is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on that one?

Morley Safer fired the final shot of the program. And he aimed it directly at trial lawyers, of course—the one business constituency that the business lobby has decided to sacrifice in this battle. The trial attorneys plan to "surprise, surprise," Safer said sarcastically, sue if tort reform passes. Safer failed to mention that suing is the next logical step—tort reform has been challenged on constitutional grounds in other states as well.

This "60 Minutes" piece was an unfortunate and ill-timed entry into the tort-reform battle in Mississippi (the Legislature passed more tort reform the next day). It's too bad that corporate-fawning media can't give due balance to a vital issue that can, ultimately, endanger the lives and constitutional rights of every Mississippian, regardless of race or bank balance. You really can support people and businesses at the same time. Surprise, surprise.

— Donna Ladd

Previous Comments

ID

63881

Comment

Whoa: It looks like the "60 Minutes" report is drawing libel lawsuits. I'm not entirely surprised; it seemed like a weak piece of investigative journalism, to say the least. And it included some serious allegations about jury pay-offs that didn't seem to have evidence behind them; a Jackson Associated Press reporter, Jason Straziuso, reported Friday that the main source on the allegation is now saying he was taped while off-camera and that he was joking about the jury tampering. Whether or not he was, CBS needed to present more evidence of such a serious allegation that may have influenced the state Legislature to pass more tort-reform legislation the next day. Interestingly, Northside Sun publisher Wyatt Emmerich is being sued as well for libel; I sure don't wish a libel suit on any of our journalistic counterparts and certainly hope that Mr. Emmerich is not guilty of libeling individual Jefferson County jurors. From watching the segment, at least what ended up in the piece, I rather doubt this end of the suit will ultimately stand; even though I disagree with Wyatt on his views on this issue, he certainly has the right to express them. I suspect the real problem here lies with CBS' choices. But time will tell.

Author

Ladd

Date

2002-12-10T14:32:50-06:00

ID

63882

Comment

I did not see the 60 Minutes piece and so know nothing about it except what has been reported. However, I don't believe any print journalist or editor in their right mind would have just thrown a jury tampering allegation out there without at least doing SOME checking to ascertain the truth of the matter--that's covered at least the second week of any decent J-School program. What on earth could 60 Minutes possibly have been thinking airing such a comment without at least airing a statement about it from some other source--yea, nay, or "no comment"?

Author

JW

Date

2002-12-13T23:43:24-06:00

ID

63883

Comment

I did not see the 60 Minutes piece and so know nothing about it except what has been reported. However, I don't believe any print journalist or editor in their right mind would have just thrown a jury tampering allegation out there without at least doing SOME checking to ascertain the truth of the matter--that's covered at least the second week of any decent J-School program. What on earth could 60 Minutes possibly have been thinking airing such a comment without at least airing a statement about it from some other source--yea, nay, or "no comment"?

Author

JW

Date

2002-12-13T23:43:37-06:00