Case Example: Broadcast.
Plaintiff, a dentist, was the subject of a critical report by a network news magazine program. The main contention of the report was that plaintiff intentionally misdiagnosed patients with a particular condition in order to generate fees from treating the non-existent condition. The principal "evidence" of the plaintiff's questionable conduct was the broadcast report's representations of what occurred when its reporter was examined by the dentist on camera.
Mr. Lame reviewed the broadcast report and the news magazine's out-takes which had been produced in the course of discovery. The out-takes included the entire examination of the reporter by the dentist/plaintiff. After completing his review, Mr. Lame prepared a written report for the plaintiff's counsel which concluded that there were major discrepancies between what the broadcast report claimed the plaintiff had said and recommended when he examined the reporter and what actually transpired in the course of the examination. Mr. Lame's report concluded that "the individuals responsible for writing the script and assembling the video portion of the report intentionally misrepresented what occurred" during the dentist's examination of the reporter.
Although Mr. Lame's report contained detailed examples of omissions and distortions in the broadcast report, he suggested to plaintiff's counsel that no written report could adequately convey the degree of seriousness of defendant's misrepresentations and distortions. With the approval of plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Lame prepared a 20 minute video report which graphically demonstrated just what the defendants had done in preparing their report on the plaintiff. Drawing on his extensive experience in television news production, Mr. Lame prepared and narrated a video report which contrasted excerpts from the broadcast report with out-takes from the interview with the plaintiff. The report dramatically demonstrated for the jury the defendant's omissions and distortions.
Mr. Lame's cutting-edge report in this case subsequently used in meetings and seminars of media defense counsel to demonstrate the problems their clients could encounter when out-takes don't support, or contradict, a broadcast report.