Unsettling

When the word began to spread about the Inky settling Ralph Cipriano’s libel suit, the jokes immediately started flying in this newsroom and, I am sure, in newsrooms across the country.

"Please," I begged my editor. "Please say something bad about me to Howie Kurtz. Tell him I’m a bum. Tell him I drown kittens. Tell him something bad. I’ll sue for millions and we’ll split what’s left over after the shysters."

Welcome to one of journalism’s nightmares.

At its root, like many miseries, this story is about God.

Or at least the Archdiocese of Philadelphia — a local representative — and what the Inquirer would or wouldn’t cover about its operations.

Back in April of 1997, Ralph Cipriano drew the ire, and the fire, of Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.

Cipriano, at the time still covering the religion beat for the Inquirer, wrote about the Cardinal’s $500,000 conference room. Incensed, Bevilacqua sniped at Cipriano from the pulpit, blasting him for inaccuracies and questioning his motives.

"Given the history of [Cipriano’s] attitude and posture towards the Archdiocese, it is difficult to rule out intentional bias," the Cardinal wrote in his newsletter, according to Frank Lewis’ May 1997 On Media story — the first chapter in a chronicle that helped kick up the current legal ruckus.

Eventually, the Inky stopped publishing the reporter’s stories of big spending by the Cardinal at a time when Catholic schools in the city were shuttered.

So he took them to the National Catholic Reporter, which ran Cipriano’s controversial and unflattering profile of Bevilacqua. As Lewis reported, it was a series of events that prompted Washington Post media critic Howie Kurtz to call Inky editor Bob Rosenthal seeking comment.

"There were things we didn’t publish that Ralph wrote that we didn’t think were truthful. He could never prove them."
That’s what Rosenthal told Kurtz.

Twenty words that would come back and bite him on his aspirations.

Long-short is, Cipriano hired Jim Beasley, archenemy of newspapers in this town, and sued the Inquirer. Two weeks later, Ralphy Boy got fired for disloyalty and, just a few days ago, walked away for his troubles with millions of dollars.

As an editor tracking this story, it doesn’t get much better. Where does the Inky get off pulling punches? What reporter sues his own paper for libel?

But as someone who’s worked with Ralph and Rosie, it couldn’t get much worse.

I’ve known Rosie for many years, introduced when I was a lowly correspondent at his shop. He was newspaper. And I greatly respected him.

I’ve known Ralphy less well, but now he is freelancing for City Paper.

Both men are enormously talented journalists with the passion and drive that is sadly missing from this business.

Watching the two slug it out via lawyers has not been fun for me. Not in the least. Not knowing that, with Rosie and Ralphy going head to head, mano-a-mano, somebody I admire would have to lose. And that, no matter who prevailed, the business of reporting in this town would get even nastier and more brutish.

Lawyers bullying newspapers is a pet peeve of mine. So I have to ask the question.

Was Rosie’s mistake worth millions?

Cipriano claims he was damaged goods after Rosie criticized him in the Washington Post, in a column read by everyone who is anyone in journalism. A reporter, argued Cipriano, won’t be hired if he or she gets a rep for having an "agenda." Cipriano, 48, has a family to support. With his boss having no confidence in him, and other potential employers likely scared off by the hullabaloo, maybe he had no other choice.

Rosenthal’s comments to Kurtz were uttered after a frustrating chain of events. But that is no excuse.

Did Rosenthal put his foot in his mouth when he told Kurtz one of his reporters could not be trusted?

Surely.

Did he damage Cipriano’s reputation?

He most certainly did.

Did he plunge that foot deeper by refusing repeated attempts to make nice with Cipriano?

Absolutely.

But did he plunge it in millions of dollars deep?

I wonder.

So why did the Inquirer settle?

Well, a trial would have proven to be embarrassingly ugly, the paper’s news judgment on the stand along with Ralph and Rosie.

It might also have proved embarrassing to the Archdiocese, where the Cardinal’s record as leader of the Philly flock would come under serious question. Though why that would factor into an Inquirer decision is something of a mystery.

It may be that the Inky decided, as did we with Vince Fumo, that the risk of a libel trial in the courts of Philadelphia was so great as to just suck up the pain of settling.

Whatever the reason, the end result is not so much the victory of a wronged reporter over malicious management, even if said management practically begged him to sue, as much as it is a victory of intimidating attorneys.

And the people who aren’t kidding about making money filing libel suits.

Which makes Philly a particularly difficult city in which to practice the First Amendment.

City Paper’s complete coverage of the Inquirer/Cipriano faceoff can be found here.