Pittsburgh TV station WTAE accused in defamation suit
A lawsuit filed on behalf of a Fayette County woman accusing a Pittsburgh television station of defamation has been filed in U.S. District Court.
Originally filed in June against WTAE, the case was transferred to federal court last week. Named as the defendant is Hearst Stations Inc.
Kathy Bass, 49, claims in the lawsuit that a photograph bearing her likeness was broadcast in 2010 with a report on the arrest of a Kathy Ann Bass, 24, in a kidnapping case.
The case cited involved Kathy Ann Bass of New Salem, who was charged for conspiring with a Uniontown man to hold a Brownsville man at gunpoint and attempt to collect a ransom.
Attorney C.J. Engel states in the suit that the station “falsely reported” Bass's involvement in the “criminal incident.”
“In fact, Bass was not involved in this criminal incident whatsoever,” Engel wrote.
The suit claims that alleged broadcast caused Bass “harm to her reputation and standing in her community” and “personal embarrassment and humiliation.” Bass “received numerous calls and inquiries as to her supposed involvement in this incident and why it was reported she was involved,” the suit states.
The suit claims the station “negligently reported and broadcast” the information, “with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, with malicious purpose and/or in bad faith.”
The suit requests damages but does not specify an amount.
Hearst attorney Jonathan Donnellan did not return a message seeking comment on Monday.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.