It is good to know that juries can be consistent when it comes to high-profile cases, even if they are consistently bad.
ABC was ordered Wednesday to pay $5.5 million in damages to Food Lion after PrimeTime Live had two reporters go undercover to expose unhealthy and illegal practices by the supermarket chain.
If any of the jurors in the Food Lion vs. ABC case believe in karma, they'd better go on a hunger strike real soon.
The truth of what the reporters claimed to find, including washing expired ham and fish in bleach to kill the smell, was not in dispute. Rather, the jury ruled against reporters posing as workers for the chain and using hidden cameras.
Lawyers who don't seem to have a grasp on the law scream about unfair practices in journalists' techniques.
If a news source is investigating a federal or state-run institution or agency , then that source can use the Freedom of Information Act to make sure there is no wrongdoing.
But corporations are not held to such standards. If a journalist comes straight out and asks them if they are doing anything wrong, the corporation can just lie.
Journalists need to be able to go undercover and use things like hidden cameras if they are to continue protecting those who don't have anyone else to watch out for their interests.
A hidden camera is nothing more than another eye. It is nothing more than a reliable witness to support any accusations made by a news source.
If Food Lion was kept from opening new markets in Houston or anywhere else because of the report, it should have disputed the facts, not the methods.
There is nothing illegal about going to work for a company or recording one's own conversation.
And if they were unable to dispute the facts, then they should consider cleaning up their act.
Food Lion, not ABC, is in the wrong in this case. Jurors need to remember that media such as PrimeTime Live are simply looking out for their best interests.