Home/Supreme Court of Oklahoma/Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co.

Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co.

1983 OK 73, 678 P.2d 242, 9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1954, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 207
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 21, 1983
Docket55430
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 1983 OK 73 (Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co., 1983 OK 73, 678 P.2d 242, 9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1954, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 207 (Okla. 1983).

Opinion

LAVENDER, Justice.

For the purposes of this appeal, we need only consider the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the amended petition to withstand a demurrer, the amended petition being identical to the original petition, except that the amended petition contains general allegations of special damages.

The amended petition alleges that defendants below are engaged in printing, publishing, and circulation of a newspaper known as The Tulsa Tribune of general circulation in Creek County, State of Oklahoma. Plaintiff below is a resident of Oklahoma City, a graduate of the University of Oklahoma, and a widely known practicing attorney since admitted to the Bar in 1936. He has a reputation of being a successful and responsible attorney and member of his profession. He has also been a successful businessman, active in civic and social affairs in the community and state, and at all times herein referred to, he was a duly qualified and filed candidate for the office of United States Senator.

The amended petition alleges the publication by defendant of nine separate items in the newspaper, alleged to be libelous, six of which are writings, and three cartoons, all relating generally to the then political campaign for the office of United States Senator. We will first consider the allegations pertaining to the writings.

1. The first is an editorial appearing in the newspaper on August 11, 1978, headlined, “The Unqualified Candidate.” A fair and objective reading of the publication discloses that it states that plaintiff, who received less than two percent of the vote in his last statewide campaign, desperately needed a political issue to put life into his hopeless campaign, asked Governor Boren, the acknowledged frontrunner in the senate race whether Boren is a homosexual or bisexual, and characterizing the query as a cruel variation of the proverbial lawyer’s question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, and an irresponsible smear. The article further states that the query was made without evidence of the other candidate’s sexual abnormality, but was premised upon a campaign statement by a third candidate who, without any supporting evidence, stated that Boren is a homosexual. The editorial concludes by stating that the voters should not be swayed by plaintiff’s descent to sewer politics, and strongly suggests that plaintiff is unqualified to be senator.

2. On the 17th day of August, 1978, an article purportedly written by one E.N. Earley entitled, “Sometimes the press a shade hypocritical,” appeared in the newspaper. The article states:

“Sometimes we members of Oklahoma’s fourth estate are a bit too pious.
*244 “Such is the case with the George Mis-kovsky-Gov. Boren dispute.
“When trailing Senate candidate Miskov-sky asked Boren to answer questions about his sexual habits, editorial writers were enraged.
“They called Miskovsky 'A Voice From the Sewer.’
“Miskovsky’s remarks were a cheap publicity stunt. But the editorial writers’ surprise and shock reeks of hyprocrisy.”

The article further states Boren’s sexual preferences were a subject of gossip among the members of the press, that Boren was aware of the gossip, but was advised that a public denial would only give credence to the rumors.

“But when Miskovsky brought up the subject, the press was flabbergasted. “There is little doubt that Miskovsky’s voice came from a sewer, but it is a sewer that was constructed — in part — by the press.”

3. On the 24th day of August, 1978, an article purportedly written by one Will Sen-tell entitled, “Boren reverses tactics * * * Governor swears he disapproves of homosexuality,” appeared in the newspaper. A fair import of the article is a speculation upon the outcome of the forthcoming election engendered by Governor Boren’s public denial under oath that he has ever been a homosexual or bisexual and that he approves or condones such activities.

The article further states: “ ‘Boren got the message from the voters,’ Miskovsky said. ‘His delayed answer under oath to the questions I asked puts the issue to rest as far as I’m concerned.’ ”

4. On the 25th day of August, 1978, an editorial appeared in the newspaper headed “Boren’s overkill.” It states:

“The spectacle of Oklahoma’s Governor David Boren calling a press conference to swear on the Bible that he was not a homosexual not only marked some kind of a first in American political history, but it was utterly unnecessary.
“The sensational innuendo advanced by George Miskovsky in a desperate effort to gain attention for his senate campaign had already exploded in Miskov-sky’s face. His miniscule vote was proof enough.
“The governor pleaded not guilty in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Surely, he has a soft, baby face. But so did Audie Murphy, the most decorated U.S. hero of World War II. The governor opened himself to an immediate lampoon by his runoff opponent, Ed Ed-mondson, who publicly swore he was not and never intended to be a Republican.
“Instead of swearing, the Governor should have simply shrugged.”

5. On the 11th day of August, 1978, an article purportedly written by one Richard Tapscott appeared entitled, “Foe says Boren ‘overreacted’ Miskovsky questions sexual conduct.” The article quoted plaintiff as saying Governor Boren and the editorial writers “overreacted” to his bringing to the public the charges made by the third candidate regarding Boren’s alleged sexual preferences and conduct. “They acted emotionally as if I had made the charge. I heard the rumor, as have many others, for months. When it came to a head in a public forum, I felt I should report it to the media and give the governor an opportunity to respond.” It related that plaintiff said he had received many calls, but none that says he should not have called it to the attention of the media. A spokesman for the Boren campaign was quoted as saying, “People seem to be outraged by it.” Plaintiff was further quoted as saying, “I have seen these rotten, dirty, scurrilous, below-the-belt editorials before.” The article speculated upon the effect of the “issue” upon the political campaign, then quoted from an anonymous “political analyst” that, “The Anthony Points thing was nothing. Miskovsky made a tremendous blunder.”

6. On the 12th day of August, 1978, there appeared in the newspaper a news analysis purportedly written by one Will *245 Sentell. In the article, the statement is made:

“When longshot contenders Anthony Points and George Miskovsky quizzed Boren on his sexual life, specifically whether he is a homosexual or bisexual, without offering any evidence, a muddy race got a lot muddier.
“Besides the fact Boren categorically denied the allegation, which was roundly trounced on by the state press, supporters are trying to gage what, if any, impact to expect.
“Most of the early indicators are pointing toward more good than harm going to the governor.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gallegly v. Cordell Memorial Hospital Foundation
W.D. Oklahoma, 2023
Medical Diagnostic Labs v. Health Care Service Corp.
Tenth Circuit, 2019
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS
2014 OK 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Peterson v. Grisham
594 F.3d 723 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
Trice v. Burress
2006 OK CIV APP 79 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2006)
Magnusson v. New York Times Co.
2004 OK 53 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2004)
Sturgeon v. Retherford Publications, Inc.
1999 OK CIV APP 78 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1999)
Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson
1998 OK 30 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
Marshall v. American Federation of Government Employees
996 F. Supp. 1319 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1998)
Brock v. Thompson
1997 OK 127 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
Strong v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.
1995 OK CIV APP 89 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1995)
Metcalf v. KFOR-TV, INC.
828 F. Supp. 1515 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1992)
Kleier Advertising, Inc. v. Premier Pontiac, Inc.
921 F.2d 1036 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)
Professional Asset Management, Inc. v. Penn Square Bank, N.A.
607 F. Supp. 1290 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1985)
Sellers v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.
1984 OK 11 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)
McCullough v. Cities Service Co.
676 P.2d 833 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 OK 73, 678 P.2d 242, 9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1954, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miskovsky-v-tulsa-tribune-co-okla-1983.