## Facts

- William Loeb, publisher of the *Manchester Union Leader*, and separate groups of *Union Leader* editors and employees sued the Globe Newspaper Co., publisher of the *Boston Globe*, for libel.
- The suits arose from *Boston Globe* editorials, a syndicated column, and a cartoon published during the 1972 New Hampshire presidential primary, when the *Union Leader* and Loeb were prominent subjects of public controversy.
- A column described the *Union Leader* as “probably the worst newspaper in America” and as being run “by paranoids for paranoids.”
- Additional pieces criticized Loeb and the *Union Leader* with terms such as “19th Century yellow journal,” “venomous,” and “daily drip of venom,” and included a cartoon Loeb alleged depicted him as a cuckoo emerging from a clock.
- The employee and editor plaintiffs claimed the column’s characterizations defamed them individually as members of the paper’s editorial management and staff.
- The Globe moved for summary judgment in the consolidated actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

## Issues

1. Whether generalized criticism of a daily newspaper and its management was “of and concerning” individual editors and employees sufficient to support personal libel claims.
2. Whether harsh characterizations of Loeb and his newspaper, and a satirical cartoon depiction, were actionable defamatory statements of fact or protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole in political commentary.
3. Whether any genuine dispute of material fact existed requiring trial, or whether the Globe was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court granted the Globe’s motions for summary judgment in all consolidated cases.
- The court held that the employee and editor plaintiffs failed the “of and concerning” requirement because the statements targeted the newspaper as an institution and a large, diffuse group.
- The court held that the challenged statements about Loeb and the *Union Leader* were nonactionable opinion, figurative language, and rhetorical hyperbole in the context of political/editorial debate.
- Because essential elements of the claims failed as a matter of law, no triable issue remained.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation plaintiff must show the publication can reasonably be understood as referring to the plaintiff personally (“of and concerning”).
- Under group libel doctrine, statements about a large, impersonal group generally are not actionable by individual members absent specificity or a sufficiently small group such that readers would understand each member is implicated.
- In matters of public concern, the First Amendment protects loose, figurative, or hyperbolic editorial language and value judgments that reasonable readers would not interpret as literal factual assertions.
- Summary judgment is appropriate in defamation actions when the challenged publication cannot reasonably bear a defamatory factual meaning as to the plaintiff, or when an essential element (such as identification) is lacking.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed all three libel actions at summary judgment, concluding that broad attacks on the *Union Leader* were not reasonably understood to refer to individual staff members and that caustic descriptions and caricature of Loeb and his newspaper in political commentary were protected opinion rather than actionable assertions of fact.


Loeb v. Globe Newspaper Co., 489 F. Supp. 481 (D. Mass. 1980)