Time Publishes Partial Retraction as Jury Considers Sharon Libel Claim

Time magazine published a partial retraction Monday of the story at issue in the $50-million libel suit brought by former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, and a six-person federal jury began deliberations in the case.

In its retraction, published as a sidebar to its coverage of the trial, Time repeated the concession it had made in court last week that it was wrong in one key detail of its 1983 cover story about Sharon’s role in the massacre of more than 700 Palestinian refugees by Lebanese Christian militia in West Beirut in September, 1982.

Time had originally reported that a secret Appendix B to an Israeli government report on the massacre described a meeting on the eve of the killings at which Sharon and Lebanese leaders reportedly discussed revenge for the assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel. The next day, Sharon authorized the militia to enter Palestinian refugee camps where the massacre occurred.

In its correction, Time said Monday: “Appendix B does not contain further details about Sharon’s visit to the Gemayel family. Time regrets that error.”

The magazine, however, added that it “stands by the substance of the paragraph in question: that ‘Sharon also reportedly discussed with the Gemayels the need for the Falangists (the Lebanese militia) to take revenge. . . .’ ”

“Time did not say, and has never said, that Sharon intended that the Falangists commit a massacre, or encouraged such a massacre,” the Time statement also said.

In a press conference on the courthouse steps, Sharon called Time’s retraction insufficient. “What Time did today showed they have not learned their lesson,” he said. “I don’t think anything could be more arrogant than that (statement). . . . What they did today is another lie. It means only (that) we have to try to make further efforts (to teach them).”

Judge’s Instructions

Meanwhile, the jury began deliberations in the case after hearing two hours of instructions on the law from U.S. District Judge Abraham D. Sofaer.

Sofaer told the jury it must first decide whether the disputed paragraph in Time’s story means, as Sharon has alleged, that he “knowingly permitted” or “actively encouraged” the massacre. Time’s position, as outlined in its retraction, is that it never reported that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacre.

Sofaer explained to the jury that Sharon’s attorneys had the burden of proving that the paragraph means what they allege.

If the jury agrees with Sharon on the paragraph’s meaning, it must then decide whether the paragraph is false and then whether Time printed it with “actual malice,” Sofaer told the jury. The test for “actual malice,” applied in all libel suits regarding public figures, is whether Time either knew that its story was false or printed it in “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or false.

Conditions for Malice

The jury could find malice, Sofaer said, if it decided that Time fabricated any part of the paragraph or that anyone at Time knowingly exaggerated what he knew. Time also would be guilty of malice if the jury decided that anyone responsible for the story even thought it was probably false.

Although Time concedes now that it was wrong about the contents of Appendix B, Sofaer explained that the secret appendix still could affect the jury’s deliberations.

The jury could rule that Time’s allegation that the disputed meeting was discussed in Appendix B “materially aggravated” the paragraph’s defamatory effect.

If it does, Sofaer said, the jury could find that Time acted maliciously in the rest of the case if it decides that anyone fabricated or knowingly exaggerated that element of the story, an element Time now concedes was untrue.

During testimony, David Halevy, the Time correspondent chiefly responsible for the disputed paragraph, admitted that he was never explicitly told by his confidential sources that Appendix B contained information about the meeting between Sharon and the Lebanese leaders. Instead, he said he had “inferred” that after hearing a description of what kind of materials the appendix included.

The jury deliberated for three hours Monday night.