AJC Demands Disclaimer For 'Richard Jewell' Movie

ATLANTA, GA — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is fighting back against claims made in a new Clint Eastwood movie portraying the paper's coverage of the 1996 Olympic bombing in Atlanta. The film's portrayal of the event could cause "devastating harm to the reputations of the AJC and its hard-working journalists," the paper said in a statement to film makers.

The upcoming movie, "Richard Jewell," by Eastwood tells the story of the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing which Jewell, who was a security guard, was suspected of planning, Vulture reported. Jewell reported a suspicious knapsack in the area and helped clear visitors before the explosion, but was within a day named by federal investigators as a suspect, which national media, including the Atlanta newspaper, reported.

The newspaper is upset, Vulture said, because the movie implies former AJC reporter Kathy Scruggs, played by Olivia Wilde, sleeps with an FBI agent, portrayed by Jon Hamm, for information. Scruggs died in 2001 at the age of 42.

It was three months before Jewell was publicly cleared by investigators. He sued the AJC for libel, a case his family continued after Jewell's death in 2007. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in January 2012 that the newspaper truthfully reported on the criminal case, so it was not legally at fault in the libel case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported.

In 2005, Eric Rudolph, confessed to the Olympic bombing and three other bombing incidents in the South. He is serving a life sentence.

To push back against the Eastwood movie version of the bombing, the AJC hired attorney Martin Singer, who is "best known as the lawyer celebrities hire to terrify journalists—usually through intimidating demand letters threatening all manner of punishments and litigation," The Daily Beast reported.

The paper and its attorney released a statement that Vulture reported, that said, in part, its "writers were and are professionals who follow accepted journalistic standards."

The 'Richard Jewell' film falsely portrays the AJC and its personnel as extraordinarily reckless, using unprofessional and highly inappropriate reporting methods, and engaging in constitutional malice by recklessly disregarding information inconsistent with its planned reporting. ...

Clint Eastwood has been quoted saying about the film that, to get it made “I sold a lot of souls to the devil.” He said “I wanted this picture in the worst way.” And he proceeded to make this picture in the worst way that amounts to a malicious defamatory smear of the AJC and its journalists.

The beginning of the film trailer proclaims that it is “BASED ON THE TRUE STORY,” and the trailer ends by telling consumers: “RICHARD JEWELL” “THE WORLD WILL KNOW HIS NAME AND THE TRUTH.”!4 While the film may tell truths about Mr. Jewell, the “facts” it portrays about the AJC and its journalists are untruthful, defamatory, and damaging.

... We hereby demand that you immediately issue a statement publicly acknowledging that some events were imagined for dramatic purposes and artistic license and dramatization were used in the film’s portrayal of events and characters We further demand that you add a prominent disclaimer to the film to that effect.

Warner Bros. responded to the statement, and said the "film is based on a wide range of highly credible source material.”

“There is no disputing that Richard Jewell was an innocent man whose reputation and life were shredded by a miscarriage of justice," the studio said in a statement, according to Variety. "It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that the Atlanta Journal Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast. 'Richard Jewell' focuses on the real victim, seeks to tell his story, confirm his innocence and restore his name. The AJC’s claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend against them.”

AJC Editor Kevin Riley told The Daily Beast said the film is "unbelievably gratuitous.”

“The letter is a way of communicating how seriously we take this portrayal of our reporter, who can’t defend herself, and of our work," Riley said, The Daily Beast reported. "We find it extremely troubling in these times when the media is under almost constant attack, for a film that claims to be portraying a real situation to suggest that this is how journalists operate. It is not how good journalists operate. It is not how we operate.”