Enquirer Belted

Burnett's $1.6 million punch

Flashbulbs popped and reporters shouted questions when a jubilant Carol Burnett emerged from Los Angeles county superior court last week, hugging fans and signing autographs for jurors. After eight days of testimony and three of deliberation, the jurors had provided a classic Tinseltown ending to a televised trial that was followed as avidly as a soap opera. They awarded Burnett a whopping $1.6 million in damages in her libel suit against the sensation-seeking National Enquirer (circ. 5,100,000). Said the relieved star: "There is a God."

The verdict capped a five-year legal battle that began when the Enquirer claimed that Burnett had been "boisterous" at a Washington, D.C., restaurant called the Rive Gauche. The gossipy weekly reported that she "had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger," spilled a glass of wine on a second patron, then tried to share her chocolate souffle with everyone in the place. Burnett did not deny that she dined at the restaurant that night, spoke to Kissinger and had "two, maybe three" glasses of wine. But, she testified, "They portrayed me as drunk." The Enquirer maintained that its information came from a normally reliable source (then freelance tipster, now Enquirer Columnist R. Couri Hay), that staffers had made efforts to verify the tip, and that a retraction ("These events did not occur") was published as soon as the tabloid learned it was wrong. Under California law a retraction severely limits damages against a newspaper involved in a libel action. But Judge Peter Smith ruled that the Enquirer was a magazine and thus not protected. The Enquirer's defense was then seriously undermined when a reporter who had been asked to verify the item testified that his editor had insisted on running the story despite the reporter's misgivings about its accuracy.

Convinced that the Enquirer had acted with reckless disregard for the truth, the jury awarded Burnett $300,000 in general damages and $1.3 million--almost as much as the privately owned tabloid says it earned in 1980--in punitive damages (her legal fees were more than $200,000). William Masterson, the Enquirer's lawyer, said the decision would be appealed.

Still pending against the Enquirer are about $100 million in libel suits brought by other Hollywood figures, including Rory Calhoun, Phil Silvers, Paul Lynde, Agent Marty Ingels and Wife Shirley Jones, Ed McMahon and Rudy Vallee. Just last week, Singer Helen Reddy and Husband/Manager Jeff Wald added a $30 million suit to the tabloid's crowded courthouse calendar. Said Wald: "I feel it is ludicrous for this publication to hide behind the First Amendment. It's like someone practicing human sacrifice and justifying it based on freedom of religion."

Normally that kind of talk would prompt indignant editorials defending freedom of the press. But few journalists are eager to defend the methods of a publication that San Francisco Examiner Editor Reg Murphy calls "a disgrace to journalism." Says Syndicated Gossip Columnist Liz Smith of the decision: "It is no precedent against the First Amendment. Responsible publishers, journalists and columnists can go on being fair-minded and work with impunity."

Maybe so, but some libel experts are uneasy. Taken together with the $14 million award (reduced from $26 million last week) against Penthouse magazine for libeling Kimerli Pring, a former Miss Wyoming, the Enquirer verdict might signal a trend in multimillion-dollar verdicts that could put publications out of business, a prospect that would unquestionably inhibit journalists. Says First Amendment Lawyer Floyd Abrams: "The fact that such a large judgment has been returned in such a highly publicized case may well be an inducement to more plaintiffs to bring more lawsuits seeking more money." As for the Enquirer, it vows no slackening of its editorial zeal. Says Editor Iain Calder: "Our job is to provide our readers with interesting, informative and accurate articles, and this is what we will continue to do." Counters Burnett: "That was an expensive dinner at the Rive Gauche."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.