'Scud Stud' believes in freedom of press, but accuracy is paramount: lawyer

A lawyer for former journalist Arthur Kent says freedomof speech and the right to reputation are at the crux of hisclient's defamation lawsuit against Postmedia and columnist DonMartin.

Kent Jesse says freedom of the press is a value Kent built hiscareer on as a war correspondent, but the need for accuracy andfairness is paramount.

Kent is suing the media company and Martin over a column that ranwhile Kent was seeking a seat for the Progressive Conservatives inthe 2008 Alberta election.

• MORE CALGARY NEWS |Calgary's 'frustrating' gang war pushes police, prosecutors to change tactics
• MORE CALGARY NEWS |New building height a tall order, say Kensington Legion neighbours

Martin's column painted Kent as an out-of-control star candidatewho had alienated party staff by speaking out against some of theparty's policies.

In closing arguments, Jesse described Martin's article as a hitpiece that used trumped-up language designed to mock and ridiculeKent.

Jesse says Kent was exercising his own freedom of speech byvoicing concerns about the party's platform.

Postmedia is to deliver its closing address after Jesse isfinished.

The company has already told Justice Jo'Anne Strekaf that itbelieves it was practising responsible journalism and has emphasizedthe media's role in informing voters about candidates' actions.

Martin's column used unnamed sources and didn't include commentfrom Kent, who got the nickname "Scud Stud" while reporting forNBC during the Persian Gulf war.

"Alberta Conservatives have bestowed problem candidate ArthurKent with a less flattering designation as he noisily blusters hisway through their reeling election campaign -- the Dud Scud," Martinwrote.

Journalistic ethics at play

The Tories went on to win a majority, but Kent lost his race.

The trial heard from campaign workers at the party level, whoconcurred that Kent was a divisive candidate who was causing theTories problems.

Campaign workers at the local level said theynoticed nothing wrong until the article ran.

The trial also heard from Martin's sources.

Lawyer Kristine Robidoux acknowledged sending him emails betweenTory insiders complaining about Kent, but said she regretted itafter seeing the article.

Party insider Alan Hallman, on the other hand, testified he hadno problem feeding Martin information, because he thought Kent hadembarrassed the party.

Journalistic ethics experts testified for both sides.

An expertcalled by Kent labelled Martin a "useful idiot" doing the biddingof his party sources, while an expert on the Postmedia sidetestified Martin did nothing wrong and based his column on soundresearch.

'I'd write it differently today'

The two central figures also testified.

Kent called the Martin article a bomb that cratered his campaignand has since prevented him from pursuing other politicalopportunities.

Martin testified that, while the article may have run on newspages, it was clearly an opinion piece based on extensive research.

Under cross-examination, however, Martin acknowledged that the lineabout Alberta Conservatives calling Kent the "Dud Scud" had comefrom only one source, whose name he couldn't remember.

"I'd write it differently today," Martin said.

The trial was originally supposed to be heard by a jury, butStrekaf dismissed jurors early on. She ruled the opening statementby Kent's lawyer was too prejudicial.