defamation libel
Sue newspaper or the reporter for libel?
<p>Are there any reasons to only sue a newspaper (the corporation) for libel and not the individual reporter who libeled you?</p>

<p>In addition to the other answer which, correctly, notes that the publisher is more likely to be in a position of being able to pay any damages awarded, there is one other good reason to sue the publisher rather than the journalist...</p>

<p>The journalist cannot print a retraction or correction with the same reach as the original article - only the publisher can do that, and they won’t necessarily do it just because the journalist wants them to.  </p>

<p>English Law answer:</p>

<p>Both the newspaper that published and the individual who wrote the defamatory statement may be sued for defamation. You may choose to sue one or sue both as co-defendants.</p>

<p>The most common reason to sue the publication over the individual writer is because the publication is more likely to pay damages.</p>

<p>If you sued the reporter alone, and he has any insurance, the insurance company will certainly force the newspaper to sit at the defense table as a co-defendant.  The newspaper has deeper pockets and was ultimately responsible for editing and selecting the reporter's article for publication.  </p>

<p>Further, the newspaper may willingly leap to the defendant's table, as a matter of protecting reporters.  Imagine what happens if they <em>leave the reporters twisting in the wind</em>: The reporter's financial life is ruined and 2 groups of people get two strong signals: </p>

<ul>
<li>Wrongdoers learn they can reliably use <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation" rel="noreferrer">SLAPP techniques</a> to silence reporters with impunity and control the media.</li>
<li><strong>All the reporters quit</strong> because it's not worth the risk. </li>
</ul>

<p>As a result, the newspaper has to step up to shield the reporter... or they won't have any reporters. </p>

<p>And it's likely the newspaper's insurance will cover the reporter <em>in any case</em>. Hence, going after the reporter is a pointless act, <strong>and worse, going after the reporter makes your complaint look like a petty harassment/SLAPP action</strong>, and gives the judge a stronger basis to dismiss it as such. </p>
