One or the Other

In a 1,300 word story, sometimes, two sentences are important.

In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer says Greenpeace participated in a publicity campaign that hurt the project and the firm's bottom line — allegedly raising the cost of construction by at least $300 million.

Greenpeace denies the allegations, saying it played a limited, supporting role in the protests, which were led by Native American groups.
Jury says Greenpeace owes hundreds of millions of dollars for Dakota pipeline protest

Because the question that I have is a simple one... Which is it?

The article talks to a few legal experts, but shies away from the important question: Did Greenpeace actually cross a line such that Energy Transfer had some legal grounds to sue them. While I understand the "David and Goliath" nature of the case lends itself to labeling the action a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, the right to protest is not unlimited, so it is, at least in theory, possible to take a protest to the point of committing a civil tort against the party being protested against. So I think that it's worthwhile in a story like this to actually talk about the case itself, and not simply its presumed implications.

Juries are neither perfect nor above criticism. So there's no reason to presume that if one or more of the three people that NPR quotes in the story felt that the jurors had erred in some way, they could say so. Pace University associate law professor Josh Galperin says he thinks that Energy Transfer's "real concern is the persistence of the protest — the way it is capable of turning public opinion," but even he doesn't say that the jury was mistaken in their decision. Just because Energy Transfer may have had ulterior motives in bringing the suit doesn't make it without genuine legal merit.

This being NPR, I don't believe that they set out to deliberately bury some evidence in their possession that Energy Transfer may have been in the right. Instead, they're catering to their audience, who, being left-leaning, are likely to see Greenpeace as the victims here. So they're approaching the story from that angle. This isn't journalism shading into advocacy, it's journalism that starts from a presumed truth and presents the case for that understanding of the facts of the matter. And I don't know that there's anything wrong with that. It just left me looking for more information than was presented.