specially concurs. •
Judge DUBOFSKY specially concurs. Good name in man, and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of our souls. Who steals my purse steals trash. ’Tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.
Shakespeare, Othello, III.iii. 155-61 (lago).
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express my view that while the existing case law may require the result reached by the majority, nevertheless, it is fundamentally unfair. The jettisoning of the usual rules applicable to motions for summary judgment, combined with the special status accorded the media, operate to deny plaintiff her day in court.
In libel cases involving a public figure or public issue, the courts have taken different approaches in evaluating the evidence in a summary judgment motion. By applying restrictive legal standards against plaintiffs, many courts have reached the point that granting summary judgments in favor of the media is the rule. See Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union, 619 F.2d 932 (2d Cir.1980); Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Cos., 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190, 105 S.Ct. 961, 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985); Brophy v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 281 Pa.Super. 588, 422 A.2d 625 (1980); Maressa v. New Jersey Monthly, 89 N.J. 176, 445 A.2d 376 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 907, 103 S.Ct. 211, 74 L.Ed.2d 169 (1982).
Other courts in deciding summary judgment motions in libel cases have refused to impose more substantial legal requirements on the parties than those found in other civil cases. See Bryant v. Associated Press, 595 F.Supp. 814 (D.V.I.1984); American Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. McIntyre, 375 So.2d 239 (Ala.1979).
Unfortunately, Colorado is among the jurisdictions that have adopted a different and more demanding standard of proof for a plaintiff in a libel action to meet when faced with a summary judgment motion than it uses in other types of cases. Compare DiLeo v. Koltnow, 200 Colo. 119, 613 P.2d 318 (1980), Russell v. McMillen, 685 P.2d 255 (Colo.App.1984), and Manuel v. Fort Collins Newspapers, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 324, 599 P.2d 931 (1979), rev’d on other grounds, 631 P.2d 1114 (Colo.1981) with Hatfield v. Barnes, 115 Colo. 30, 168 P.2d 552 (1946) and Dominguez v. Babcock, 727 P.2d 362 (Colo.1986).
Given the extraordinary legal protections already available to media defendants in libel cases involving public figures or public issues, I do not believe that a different and harsher summary judgment standard for deciding these cases is either necessary or desirable. See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 61 L.Ed.2d 411, (1979) (fn. 9); Clark v. American Broadcasting Cos., 684 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir.1982); Pep v. Newsweek, Inc., 553 F.Supp. 1000 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Bryant v. Associated Press, supra; Cinker, Inc. v. Northern Gas Co., 578 F.Supp. 112 (D.Wyo.1983); Bruno v. New York News, Inc., 89 A.D.2d 260, 456 N.Y.S.2d 837 (1982).
*1126Here, the extremely destructive nature of these accusations, when coupled with the attorney’s contradictory statement, should have caused defendants to investigate and take steps to ensure that the police department information was accurate. Postponing the report to complete such investigation might have cost the TV station an audience rating point, but it would not have in any way cheapened the First Amendment.
A reputation woven by a lifetime of work may be left in tatters by a 20-second sound bite. Media conglomerates which have the extraordinary capability to be so destructive to a person’s life should be legally accountable if, as here, they fail to act responsibly.
While I do not object to the standards enunciated in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and its progeny, I do question the misuse of summary judgment as a tool to prevent a jury from deciding a case under those rigorous standards. Unfortunately, the present state of the summary judgment law appears to permit such defendants to avoid any liability for the harm caused by their erroneous statements. See DiLeo v. Koltnow, supra; Russell v. McMillen, supra.