Media Cautioned on Stories About Editor : Lawyers’ Letter Seen as Novel Attempt to Influence News Coverage

Among techniques for influencing the press, the preemptive warning letter from an attorney is still novel. It is even more unusual when it is used by a prominent journalist who has hired attorneys to caution reporters to be careful how they write about him.

Earlier last week, major news organizations nationwide received a letter from lawyers representing James R. Whelan, former editor and publisher of the Washington Times. The letter put news organizations on notice that Whelan had hired a law firm “for the purpose of protecting his professional name reputation” and cautioned media against publishing stories that repeat what Whelan says are “careless allegations” about his ouster in July of 1984 from the Washington Times.

Whelan’s attorneys were writing, the letter said, to “request” that the media “not repeat errors of fact lodged in data bases” and “repeated carelessly in many stories since.”

The letter, written by the McLean, Va., law firm of Sedam & Shearer, was sent to every “major” news organization in radio, television, newspaper and magazine publishing, Whelan said.

“This kind of letter is something new,” said Richard Ovelmen, general counsel for the Miami Herald. “I have only seen it in the last year or so, and even then only rarely.”

Letters such as Whelan’s differ from traditional methods of trying to influence press coverage--such as hiring a public relations firm or calling a press conference--and from traditional methods of trying to redress a perceived wrong--such as demanding a correction, writing a letter to the editor or hiring a lawyer to dispute a specific story.

Whelan’s letter, and others like it, instead involve attorneys and written notices preemptively--anticipating stories’ content before they are written and notifying press organizations that one already has taken the initial legal step of retaining counsel.

One of the first such letters that press lawyers remember was written by attorneys for Richard V. Allen, President Reagan’s former national security adviser, notifying the press that any errors in depicting Allen’s conduct in office might prompt a lawsuit.

One purpose of such letters, said San Diego Union general counsel Hal Fuson, is to lay the foundation for actual malice or negligence claims in libel litigation. “It has the effect of trying to box the media into a corner,” Fuson said. “No one can contend they weren’t warned if there is a later suit charging actual malice or negligence.”

Other possible purposes, attorneys said, are to attempt to manipulate press coverage or intimidate the press to discourage it from writing. “This may be more effective than hiring a (public relations) firm because it suggests the possibility of a lawsuit if the reporter doesn’t write what the lawyer wants written,” said Jeffery S. Klein, senior staff counsel for the Los Angeles Times.

Whelan’s attorney, Glenn J. Sedam, denied that his letter was intended to imply anything more than it stated: “There is no implicit threat of a lawsuit or anything like that.”

However, Sedam did agree that such letters have the potential to backfire, drawing attention to the very issue the subject may want ignored. “We thought about that and discussed it with Jim,” Sedam said. “He has no desire to resurrect the subject of his leaving the (Washington) Times at all.

“What prompted the letter,” Sedam said, “is that there have been a few stories written lately that stated that he left the Washington Times over a contract dispute, which isn’t Jim’s recollection of exactly how things occurred.”

Whelan is in the news again as executive director of “CBN News Tonight,” the daily half-hour news program that premiered Jan. 27 on the Christian Broadcasting Network. CBN is the cable television operation founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, the religious personality who is host of the “700 Club” program and a possible Republican presidential candidate in 1988.

Whelan said in an interview that the letter was “born out of desperation, when one finds oneself unable to redress a wrong any other way.”

The circumstances of Whelan’s ouster from the Washington Times remain unclear even 18 months later. Whelan charged at the time that control of the newspaper, which has considerable visibility in the White House, was being seized by its controversial owners, officials from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. “The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper,” he told a press conference.

Washington Times editors denied Whelan’s accusations in their own press conference and charged that Whelan had been removed after he demanded a lucrative new contract, including a gift of an $800,000 house.

Sedam, in his letter and interview, reiterated Whelan’s position that “there was no argument over contract dollars. It was a dispute over policy.”

In response, the Washington Times last week issued a statement: “The facts do not support that Mr. Whelan left because of any change in the owner/newspaper relationship. It was indeed a personnel matter, and our statements reflected that at the time. . . . We wish Mr. Whelan well in his future endeavors, but history should always be based upon facts.”

Larry Chandler, promotion and research director for the Washington Times, contended in an interview that Moon and the Unification Church have no legal or financial connection to the newspaper, although previous statements by Washington Times editors contradict that.