Scenario: Tom is a political columnist for the Washington Post. He is well-known for his well-researched
pieces on topics ranging from local budget problems to foreign affairs. In his latest column, he attacks a
senator for lying to the public about his use of public funds. He accuses the senator of taking lavish
vacations on public money. At one point in the piece he claims the senator's actions are more nefarious
than a James Bond villain. Tom has a great reputation for making sure his reports are well-sourced even
though they are columns and not straight news stories. Unfortunately, part of his story is wrong. One of
his sources overstated the amount of money that was actually used. The senator is livid and believes the
Washington Post is guilty of defamation. He takes them to court.
Given what you've learned about libel laws do you think Tom is guilty or not? defend your position. Your response should be a couple paragraphs long and address
each point in the standards for proof. Make sure to support your reasoning.