Presence of Malice?

Might General Electric be mulling legal action Bill O'Reilly or Fox News for claiming the electronics and media giant aids terrorists?

That was the first thing that came to mind when reading yesterday's AP report that quoted General Electric spokesman Gary Sheffer calling O'Reilly's assertions about GE allegedly supplying components for roadside bombs aimed at US soldiers "irresponsible and maliciously false."

For those attuned to the nuances of legalese, it hints that GE is thinking about the standard for libel, a false statement made with "actual malice"—in other words, knowing something isn't true but running with it anyway. (See: New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964.) However, with the ongoing—and, let's be honest, completely tiresome—feud between O'Reilly and General Electric, this report by O'Reilly could be seen as part of a campaign he and his network are waging against GE. Then again, proving a reporter's intent is difficult and might require the services of a professional mind reader.

Portfolio.com called Sheffer who declined to address any legal issues. "I wouldn't speculate on what we might or might not do in the future," he said. "All I can tell you is we take it very seriously. We take our reputation very seriously."

O'Reilly was careful to end his August 11 report on GE and IEDs (improvised explosive devises) by saying, "To be clear, The Factor is not accusing anyone of anything. We are just reporting what we believe to be true."

But his non-accusations were enough to prompt Sheffer to tell AP: "We usually do not respond to the misleading and inaccurate claims made on this program because very few people take them seriously... but tonight's report took this smear campaign to a new low."

Judging from O'Reilly's earlier segments—including one in which a producer ambushed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt in Florida—there are probably newer and lower lows coming in the near future.