Perhaps one of the more egregious reporting errors in recent memory occurred when The Miami Herald released a news story Wednesday in which it stated that Diaz had been “hospitalized after he attacked Miami cops at a police station.” The Stockton, California native was accused of a domestic violence incident. Certainly, this would be a major disappointment from one of the UFC’s most respected fighters. But the news was not true.
Instead, Michael Albert Nates, a local Miami-area MMA fighter was the individual alleged in the incident.
The Miami Herald issued a quick retraction.
But, the damage may have been done. Diaz’s publicist, Zach Rosenfeld, told MMAJunkie.com that the story was not true.
“Nate has been in Stockton since the Tuesday after the Super Bowl, and there is no possible way that what is being reported is relatable to him.” Rosenfeld further stated, “At no point did Nate have any interactions with Miami law enforcement. Zero issues whatsoever, and he’s never been attached to anything close to domestic violence in his life.”
Diaz posted on social media telling followers he was in Stockton.
Rosenfeld noted that they may pursue a defamation action against the newspaper.
The question is whether Diaz should sue and whether he would prevail?
The answer to both questions is No.
While the statement published by The Miami Herald was inaccurate and likely done without much fact-checking to ensure that the man accused of the crime was in fact UFC fighter Nate Diaz, the question is whether it was done with reckless disregard.
For a defamation claim, one must prove four essential elements:
- A false statement claimed to be a fact;
- Publicized to a third party (printing the news for consumers to read will suffice);
- The party publicizing the false statement was negligent (here, The Miami Herald); and
- Damages, or some harm caused to the person due to the subject.
For a famous person like Diaz, there is also an additional threshold for #3. Diaz would have to show that the publication of the false statement was done with “reckless disregard” rather than negligence. This is a higher threshold to prove that mere negligence. “Reckless disregard” or actual malice would require a “conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequence of so doing.” It is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.
The reason for the higher standard goes back to the U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court stated that the higher burden of proof was required by the First Amendment in order to ensure uninhibited debate on public issues.
While Diaz might be able to argue that The Miami Herald acted with “reckless disregard” it would be hard to prove with concrete evidence. Certainly, to name Diaz was wrong, but the fact that the individual arrested was also an MMA athlete might mean that some reporters and/or fact-checker just didn’t do their job correctly in ensuring that the person involved in the domestic violence case was accurately reported. But, for Diaz to prevail he’d have to show that somehow The Miami Herald made of the story up knowing it would damage the reputation of the Stockton-native.
In addition, Diaz would have to prove damages although harm to his reputation especially the fact that the crime is domestic violence and being a MMA fighter would hurt potential opportunities for him.
Payout Perspective:
In most cases, newspaper attorneys are the savviest when it comes to defamation and privacy law as they deal with the issue all the time. In this instance, it would be hard to prove that The Miami Herald story was done in “reckless disregard.” If the person arrested was not an MMA fighter and Diaz was still pointed out, he might have more of a case. Yet, mistaken identity cases when the person misidentified is a famous person usually do not end in lawsuits. This is due in part do to the fact that the standard for proving such a claim is much more difficult for famous people.
