Henderson suit has merit

Former Commissioner Molly Henderson's lawsuit against Lancaster Newspapers will rely on New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254,1964), the landmark case which establishes the "actual malice" standard that a "public figure" must prove to win a libel action.

It is inconceivable to me as a professional journalist that the reporters, editors, and columnist named in the complaint were not aware that what they were publishing was recklessly false. The reckless part is important. The Grand Jury Report, and the earlier Myers-Hofmann report, clearly exonerates Henderson of any criminal activity. Yet the Lancaster Newspapers' staff continued to mislead the public and taint Henderson's reputation after the release of the reports. Either they read the reports and recklessly disregarded the conclusions, or they recklessly disregarded the truth by not reading them at all.

Lancaster Newspapers' continual trashing of Henderson had very real consequences. By libeling and defaming Molly Henderson, Lancaster Newspapers undermined the democratic process by painting this duly elected and honest official as a criminal. Henderson lost an election due in large part to the smear campaign led by Lancaster Newspapers.

The damage that the false accusations did to Molly Henderson was also personal, not just political. This is a person -- a woman -- who grew up in this insular little county, and was faced with the ignominy of having her fellow Countians look at her as a pariah with no good reason other than the press took advantage of its monopoly status.

Lancaster Newspapers took a good name and covered it with mud for more than a year. To my mind, a crime doesn't get more serious than that.