Former Governor Phil Bryant moved one step closer to getting the names of Anna Wolfe's sources in her reporting on the DHS scandal after the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Mississippi Today's request for a protective order yesterday.
The former Governor sued Mississippi Today and its publisher, Mary Margaret White, for defamation in Madison County Circuit Court on July 26. Mississippi Today earned a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the DHS scandal that took place during Mr. Bryant's tenure as Governor. However, the former Governor alleged Mississippi Today engaged in a pattern of defamation against him while reaping rewards for its false reporting. Earlier post with discussion of complaint. While Mr. Bryant wages war against the online publication for its alleged defamation, he opened a second front as he pursued rather aggressive discovery against Ms. Wolfe's suspected sources. The plaintiff issued subpoenas against Jacob Black, attorney Brad Pigott, and attorney Thomas Gerry Bufkin for all communications with Ms. Wolfe and any other Mississippi Today employee.
Mississippi Today certainly was not going to surrender its sources without a fight and fight it did. The defendants filed a motion for a protective order on October 30, 2023. The motion argued:
By far the largest category of discovery sought by Plaintiff in his two motions to compel are for either confidential sources, non-confidential sources, editorial processes, or notes which are protected by the reporters’ privilege under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The two sides skirmished until May 2024 when Circuit Judge Brad Bills denied the request for the protective order. Judge Mills held:
Motion of Defendants Deep South Today d/b/a Mississippi and Mary Margaret White for" "Protective Order Concerning Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Defendant Mary Margaret White to" "Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs First Set of interrogatories and Responses to Requests for" "Production and Motion to Compel Defendant Deep South Today to Answer and Respond to" "Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Responses to Requests for Production (Doc. 66) is held in abeyance pending receipt and review of the privilege. However, the Court finds as to the reporter's privilege that Mississippi appellate courts have not yet recognized a First Amendment reporter's privilege which protects the refusal to disclose the identity of confidential informants. The information sought is relevant and Plaintiffs have shown a compelling interest, specifically that they must prove that Defendants either lied about having a confidential source or that source or the circumstances surrounding the source's information was so unreliable that it was reckless "for the defendant to rely on it. The requested items for which Defendants have raised this privilege should be produced as part of the privilege log for an in-camera determination."
The ruling produced quite the earthquake in the media as the thought of giving up sources was considered to be almost criminal. Mississippi Today issued the following statement:
We believe this court order is unconstitutional, so we have no choice but to appeal it to the Mississippi Supreme Court,” said Mississippi Today’s editor-in-chief Adam Ganucheau. “With our appeal, the stakes are incredibly high: The Supreme Court could guarantee these critical rights for the first time in our state’s history, or it could establish a dangerous precedent for Mississippi journalists and the public at large by tossing aside an essential First Amendment protection.
The Coalition for Women's Press Freedom, the International Press Institute, the Committee to Protect Journalists, ESPN, NBC News, and of course, the New York Times weighed in against the ruling.
Mississippi does not recognize the reporter's "privilege" even though 40 states do.
The defendants submitted an interlocutory appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Their petition argued:
This Court should enforce a privilege over Mississippi Today's unpublished newsgathering materials. Bryant's overbroad discovery requests seek the entire investigative file" of Mississippi Today's reporter and ask petitioners to "identify each person your employees spoke with regarding· the plaintiff within the past three years." These discovery requests exceed any legitimate need and appear designed to chill sources from providing information to Mississippi Today. Absent intervention by this Court, Mississippi Today will need to furnish any confidential source material to the circuit court for in camera review, and may need to produce other, unpublished notes, interviews, or source materials for news stories over which Bryant has no right to sue . This Court's review is urgently needed to prevent this brazen invasion of the newsgathering process and bring Mississippi in line with its sister states that have provided robust protections for news reporting in the public interest.
The Mississippi Supreme Court considered it all before telling Mississippi Today yesterday no dice. The Court's ruled:
This matter is before the Court, en bank, on the Petition for Interlocutory Appeal filed by Deep South Today d/b/a Mississippi Today and Mary Margaret White ("Deep South"). An Answer in Opposition was filed by Phil Bryant and Deborah Bryant ("Bryants"). Also before the Court is the Motion for Damages for Frivolous Appeal filed by the Bryants, to which Deep South filed a responsive pleading styled Opposition.After due consideration, the Court finds that Deep South's Petition for Interlocutory Appeal should be denied. The Court further finds that the Bryants' Motion for Damages for Frivolous Appeal should be denied.
Chief Justice Randolph as well as Justices Coleman, Maxwell, Chamberlin, Ishee, and Griffis affirmed the opinion. Justices Kitchens and King dissented. Justice Beam did not participate.
Kingfish note: Next step: federal court.
79 comments:
Poor Anna. The First Amendment protects us from the government. Bryant sued as a private citizen.
Uh oh. Miss Priss continues to have bad days. Hate it for her. Not.
I thought 'newsrooms' had long been permitted to conceal their sources. Does 'freedom of the press' not cover that?
No Pigott, No Pulitzer.
It figures that leftie Justice Kitchens voted to deny.
Ahh, Grasshopper, but she wrote of him in his official government capacity.
Methinks we are seeing posts from an attorney who happens to be in the immediate family.
Perhaps Kitchens' last dissent. One of hundreds.
@9:43 [AND] did he do so before or after his extended length pre-election podcast interview with MT?
Going ballistic today-
The Coalition for Women's Press Freedom, the International Press Institute, the Committee to Protect Journalists, ESPN, NBC News, and of course, the New York Times weighed in against the ruling.
The kids are not alright.
Good ole red neck Mississippi politics. The court system is straight out of the cotton fields.
'When the cotton gets rotten you can't pick very much cotton,
In them ole cotton fields back home".
Notify me when Branning get in office. Is the votes counted yet?
After today's county cert Kitchen's will need to be hiding those pots from his wife.
Now we get to see how truly deep the Barksdalers will dig into their pockets.
Or maybe not. I smell monkey business with that election. Why else would it be taking so long to count a mere 3,000 absentee ballots.
This is all a diversion to take away from the fact that Anna’s reporting on Phil Bryant is spot on. Phil’s own text messages alone are enough to indict, yet he remains unscathed.
The staff at Mississippi Today aren't reporters, journalists or press. They are political hacks and activists. It's fine to be one. Just be honest about it. Also, don't subsidize your political activities with tax money.
Thanks for the election results. Jackson Jambalaya is the only place you can get real news! My hat is off to Kingfish.
Pulitzer Prizes are issued by Columbia University; and that’s all we need to know about that.
The last 7 years, 10 months & 16 days since January 20, 2017 has confirmed that Leftist Democrat Propagandists posing as so-called journalists lie…then tell us it’s from anonymous sources. Just like they lied by telling us Hunter Biden’s laptop and Ashley Biden’s diary weren’t real.
Brad Pigott…so he’s still riding his daddy’s coattails huh?
I hhink this is correct and proper. The First Ammendment doesn't grant a license to defame public figures. The Mississippi Today can still protect their sources if it's so important. All they have to do is settle the lawsuit on terms zgreeznld to the plaintiff.
They gave out a Pulitzer for the reporting on the Russia Hoax which was a totally false story. They should have given Kingfish a Pulitzer for totally exposing Lumumba's lies about OB Curtis.
Did I just hear Anna's shredder running on high speed? Why did she buy that Bleach Bit software?
Commie cadres clandestinely cuckhold criminal conspiracies, call it clarity of communication. But blaspheme the very freedom they profess protects them.
If memory serves me right, Massachusetts is looking at this similar issue with regard to the Karen Reed trial, if you continue to watch. However they involved out of state publications, who do have in-state protections. At the trial level now.
The 'get him out of my kitchen ad' was incredibly bad. Kitchens should have asked for a refund.
People trying to make No Pigott, No Pulitzer catch on like fetch. Nerds.
Most of these commenters believe everything Faux News tells them and yet...
Do you people truly believe Phil Bryant is innocent, and didn’t say what his text messages seem to say he said?
MSToday loses this one on Federal level. Better to settle and cut losses.
Freedom of the press promotes speech and self-governance for all Americans. Journalists
provide information voters need to evaluate candidates. They uncover unlawful acts by elected
representatives and expose government abuses of power. Investigative reporting helps ensure
the government is open to public scrutiny. Liberty is lost without a free and independent press.
Confidential information maintains the independence of the press. The government often
hides embarrassing or unlawful activities in the name of national security. Watergate and the
Pentagon Papers became public only after informants were assured anonymity. More recently,
confidential sources broke stories about illegal government programs including torture,
warrantless wiretapping, kidnapping, and illegal detention.
The confidentiality of journalistic sources is central to journalists’ ability to properly investigate stories and to the protection of individuals and whistleblowers who provide information to them. The ability of a journalist to protect confidential sources protects the willingness of sources to share information with journalists in the first place and thereby protects the rights of society to access information about sensitive issues.
Without confidentiality, these sources would refuse to speak to a reporter out of fear for their own and/or their family’s safety, that they will be fired from their jobs, that they will be shunned in their communities, or some other retaliation.
The reporter’s privilege is integral to journalists’ independence. It ensures that journalists remain free from government control. It also ensures that the public sees that journalists are independent, which protects their credibility and encourages sources to speak freely with them.
Efforts to compel the disclosure of sources have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and media freedom and hinder the free flow of information.
I hope this leads to the legislature adopting the source shield. Mississippi needs more sunlight on its public officials. The source shield promotes disclosure of bad acts. 40 states recognize this. MS should also.
Having said this, I know the chances are slim.
RMQ
@11:59 cut and paste job w/o attribution.
Everything Anna Wolfe wrote and did was legit. This lawsuit is all about the Ms Today CEO spouting off. Not sure why Anna has to rat out her sources because Phil is mad about what the CEO said. Knowing Anna she won’t back down. Phil will be the bully that drives her to jail. That will really boost his consulting business.
Obama put a New York Times reporter in jail for rfusing to reveal her sources. He went to war with the press over this issue.
What if there are no confidential sources and Anna just made it up? It could happen.
How do the Bryant Songy and Snell employees get any work done when they are constantly posting on this thread?
Which other constitutional amendments don’t apply in Mississippi? Did we secede and just not tell anyone? I need to get the hell out of this trash state, this is rotten.
Take it to the real Supreme Court. These morons in Mississippi haven’t gotten much right in years.
Now let’s see if she practices what she preaches and goes to jail to protect her source
Bryant and Farve’s text messages say what they say, and point straight to guilty. If it smells like a duck, it’s a duck.
Sad deal, this state is an authoritarian’s dream.
🌞
Definitely headed to federal court. This is constitutional.
what "attribution" you need 12:13? basic fundamental stuff you should have learned in civics class. here's a cite: the 1st Amendment.
Anna, cough up your sources, or else. Ve know that you have a sister in Berlin. Ve have our vays.
So a 50k campaign contribution to a Mayor is criminal but 40M stolen from. Poor kids is not? Got it.
@ 1:25 pm.....You are right on point !
I agree with the Supremes' opinion.
What does “Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence” mean?
With no lack of broke ass acting politicians!
Phil and Deb (let's not leave her out) defamed themselves. $70 million in state funds down the drain. Lawyers can't change that. If I was Anna I would never reveal anything for those dogs.
Bryant and Farve’s text messages say what they say, and point straight to guilty.
What specific crimes are they guilty of?
Feel and Deb allege loss of consortium. Inquiring minds want proof… ED?
The poster who constantly brings up Bryant/Farve.....please seek help. There is an entire world out here.
Looks like Anna and her house of cards is about to fall....Oh, and let's not forget the leftist propaganda machine, "news" outlet ,MS Today! I'm starting to see a trend here. People are waking up to the nonsense.......except for a few fish heads
Phil Bryant appears exposed for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, etc. Criminally, based on his text messages alone, he appears exposed for fraud and yes, embezzlement. The fact that he claims he never received anything of value doesn’t matter.
It's almost legally impossible to defame a politician. Bryant has sued as a private citizen, yet everything Miz Wolfe said about him exposed, as it were, his acts as governor, a politician.
She didn't defame a private citizen. She spoke the truth about a political cartoon character. Wolfe 1 - Feel 0
the morons on this site are hilarious. to 1:04...the real supreme court? please...........
the supreme court of the united states refuses to hear about 99.99% of all cases appealed there. and somehow i think this little pissing contest is not going to interest the USSC.
I suspect I am more conservative than 99% of the people who comment here. Having said that, I fully support her right to keep her sources private. This country needs journalists who seek the truth regardless of their political bias. Anyone not wearing rose colored glasses knows that Phil Bryant was complicit in the TANF funds situation. If you read the text messages and come to any other conclusion then you are truly in denial. I wish more conservatives would call balls and strikes, think for themselves, and quit parroting every opinion they hear out of our Republican Leaders. Its called thinking for yourself and thinking critically. We do not have to defend and believe anything that comes from one party.
Join your neoconservatibe brethren in the dustbin of history.
I suspect I am more conservative than 99% of the people who comment here.
What does that self-assessment have to do with the rest of your comment?
Funny how many morons keep making this about Wolfe. Phil sued over the comments Mary Margaret said, which were admittedly stupid and exaggerated. Anna may or may not be required to rat out her source but nothing in the case suggests what SHE said was false.
This real estate has been covered already:
The SCOTUS said the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice – "that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth." The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor "newspapers".
Bryant has low friends in high places that are just applying some lawfare hoping to cause some financial pain and strain to Mississippi Today. They know they're not going to win. It's just to make them sweat. Yes, Anna and MT are lefties, but on this case - Bryant is corrupt as the rest of Mississippi gubmint is, he knows, it, Shad knows it, and God knows it. Still waiting for the Feds to come calling for Bryant, who will lose his own personal rebel Lost Cause before he keels over.
From what I can tell, there was nothing wrong with Ms. Wolfe's published stories. Such stories usually go through an editor or another set of eyeballs. If the defendants have a weak spot, it will be the comments made on twitter, podcasts, and public forums where such remarks are unfiltered. That is the danger of giving reporters and editors free rein on social media and other platforms where there is no filter.
The Miss. Supreme Court almost always denies petitions for interlocutory appeal. Did the Miss. S.C. rule on the merits? Did I miss something?
Can someone help me out to explain the connection between the allegedly defamatory statements and Wolfe's sources? Those details seem lost in the weeds in all of this. I'm trying to understand the discoverability of Wolfe's sources.
KF, a post with that briefing would be helpful.
The Putlitzer went to their heads Kingfish and they (White, Ganuchump, Wolfe) thought they could say anything, anytime, anywhere with impunity. Their needs for more ego-strokes went exponential. They readily solicited back pats and adulation from their audience du jour whatever the venue or medium. It no longer was about the story but rather about basking in the notoriety and fame of their story. The mutual admiration groups needed more red meat and they were happy to provide it for more strokes. Donna Ladd spends every single day on social media begging and pleading for the same.
Lord help us! If we have Russia rules and sources who tell the truth about bad acts get to go to our version of Siberia, please stop pretending y'all are worried about freedom. You want the freedom to shoot anyone that won't do what you want for yourself...to hell with everybody else.
"If the defendants have a weak spot, it will be the comments made on twitter, podcasts, and public forums where such remarks are unfiltered>/b>."
I can't believe Kingfish said that. If there exists a public forum more filtered than this one, please step forward and name it.
If the lawsuit is being brought by a man in his private capacity and all statements have been made about a man in his public capacity, where defamation is virtually impossible, how can Bryant expect to prevail?
people in mississippi are so stupid as to believe one gets rich off a libel or slander case..........not hardly.
Well, well, well let's see how much coin the supporters of "the state’s flagship nonprofit newsroom" is willing to drop defending these minor league journos.
Anna Wolfe and Mississippi Today provided a great service to the citizens of Mississippi. Now, Bryant and his Republican cronies are determined to break Mississippi Today. What Bryant and his administration did was corruption at its very worst. Mississippi Today has shined a light on political corruption in the darkest of places as well as reporting on education, health care, the prison system, etc. My hat is off to them.
Nuff said!
What happens if Mississippi Today wins in the end? Will Bryant, et al have to pay their legal bills.......seems like they should if it's clearly just frivous lawfare.
Macy, I was wondering the same thing.
Pages 28-29 of the posted docs contain the trial court's ruling. It appears to me that the court found the sources to be relevant for the plaintiffs to prove that 1) the defendants lied about having sources, or that 2) the sources were so unreliable that reliance on them was reckless.
To me, it's obvious that Phil Bryant to just trying to find out who to punish for ratting him out. But at this point, the trial judge has just ordered production of a privilege log for in camera production, so Phil won't get to see it until after the judge evaluates it, presumably for relevancy.
All that said, it will be interesting to see where this case goes, as truth is an absolute defense to liable, and the burden of proof will be much lower in this civil case than for a criminal conviction.
Local Mississippi courts - including its Supreme Court - don't mean jack shit at the federal level and everyone knows it. Mississippi's judiciary is a bunch of dirt dumb, biased good ole' boys or militant black females who both hate being illuminated for their stupidity, but still keep getting elected by the sheeple.
The in camera review portion of Judge Mills' discovery order has been lost in all of this. Great comment.
It’s going to be funny when it’s made public that Shad White and various MDHS officials top the list of MS Today sources.
"So a 50k campaign contribution to a Mayor is criminal but 40M stolen from. Poor kids is not? Got it."
That's like saying, chicken tastes good. Therefore beef tastes bad.
Why do liberals think like this? Sane people can actually want Lamumba AND Bryant to face justice. Got it?
Post a Comment