Time published its story on the word of a sleazy, duplicitous correspondent in Israel--one who, a few years earlier, had been told by the magazine to clean up his act. There was no "Appendix B."

CBS published as "news" a documentary custom-made by a network producer to fit his conspiracy theories about the Vietnam War. He had no qualms, it seems, about splicing together footage of questions and answers that didn't really follow each other, harassing and coaching witnesses or disregarding impressive sources who contradicted his thesis.

That's all not well and bad, and Adler gets no argument from anyone for criticizing Time's sloppiness and CBS's unethical journalistic practices. She is also on solid ground criticizing the overly agressive tactics of Cravath lawyers and the decision by both defendants to defend to the hilt stories they knew were far from unimpeachable.

While the claims of CBS and Time were declared to be unfounded, the courts did not find them guilty of "actual malice" or of a "reckless disregard" for the truth. Hence, they were not guilty of libel. Adler writes that such a standard of libel is incoherent. When calling for a reinterpretation of the libel laws, however, she is not very convincing--or credible.

Big Media may well be unjustifiably arrogant and self-confident. But does Adler really want to make it easier for plaintiffs to win libel suits? Time and CBS can afford Cravath's impressive services. But what about the Podunk Daily Herald? In a "coda" to the book Adler does acknowledge that any changes in the libel laws, especially under the new Supreme Court, would likely be a change for the worse. What she doesn't mention is an interesting, and relevant, bit of her past.

Adler is particularly critical of the extra difficulty "public figures" have in winning libel suits. This inspired her critics to shish Adler with her own kebob stick. Why? Well, before either the Westmoreland or Sharon trial began, Adler filed a libel suit against the Washington Journalism Review.

The case was dismissed in September, but Adler would have had an easier libel standard to meet had she not been categorized by the court as: a public figure. It's quite surprising, isn't it, that the furious press critic who wrote Reckless Disregard did not think to include a disclaimer about her own involvement in libel proceedings?