Then we're all in agreement, except for BTC, who said actual malice was required.

As for the alternate situation, where the prosecutor was quoted correctly, but misspoke, I think we're in agreement, too. In that case I believe it depends on the wording, which is why you said that things needed to be worded correctly. If the article said "The Prosecutor said 'Blah Blah'" with no additional commentary, and the prosecutor actually said that, then the article was factual and accurate, even if what the prosecutor said was incorrect. If they later learn that what the prosecutor said was inaccurate, I still think it's appropriate to retract it.

Per BTC's most recent post, Drake did not plead guilty of theft. That was my conclusion, based on the quick retraction by the News, however it leaves open the question of whether or not the reporter quoted the Prosecutor accurately.

All I want to know is what happened. Just got my basketball season ticket renewal in the mail and I'm being asked to "donate" $900 to have the right to buy four tickets. I, like many of you, simply want to know that my money is being handled in a fiscally responsible manner.

I believe we have totally different understandings of what I wrote. We are all on the same page minus OCF. As long as the ANews did NOT make up the story and quoted the Prosecutor (whether or not the prosecutor was correct in his words), then the paper has done nothing wrong. You are correct, their is a legal term "actual malice", but that is NOT what I meant in my wording. I meant simply that if the paper in good faith quoted a public figure on a statement that they then have NOT committed malice. If that was the case, any reporter who is printing Trump comments would be guilty of committing civil crimes daily ;-)

Your link is from The Post, not the Athens News. A-News still mentions theft.

A media representative cannot defame a person by accurately quoting a public official. Perhaps the public official (prosecutor) can be found to have defamed him, but not the writer in this case.

Secondly, you'd be hard pressed to prove that the promotions director of a public institution is not a "public" individual.

Correct. There is no libel against the newspaper because the newspaper's statement is not false if it accurately quotes the person. Only someone guilty of a false statement can be accused of libel.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 611, provides as follows: "The publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding * * * is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported."

This section of the Restatement was adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill.2d 146, 419 N.E.2d 350, 50 Ill.Dec.242 (1980).

Although the literal language of the Restatement limits the privilege to reports of "proceedings," it has been extended to the statements of law enforcement officials in their official capacities.

Under this privilege, the news media may reprint defamatory information reported by another in the context of public records or proceedings. The privilege protects news accounts based on the written and verbal statements of governmental agencies and officials made in their official capacities. Myers v. The Telegraph, 332 Ill.App.3d 917, 773 N.E.2d 192, 265 Ill.Dec. 830 (5th Dist. 2002)

For the privilege to apply, the news media is obligated to summarize the defamatory matter in a fair and accurate manner. The accuracy of the summary, not the truth or falsity of the information being summarized, determines whether the privilege applies. Myers, supra. A plaintiff can defeat this affirmative defense of reporting privilege if he can show that the defamatory matter does not appear in the official record or proceedings. Myers, supra. In the case where an official has made oral statements, a plaintiff may get his case to trial by showing that the report did not accurately summarize the statement of the official. Maple Lanes, Inc. v. News Media Corporation, 322 Ill.App.3d 842, 751 N.E.2d 177, 256 Ill.Dec.124 (2nd Dist. 2001).

All I want to know is what did he "do?"

Not if the person is not a public figure and state libel laws are germane. In those cases, the liability for a false statement is on the publication as well as on the person making the false statement, if not otherwise protected by privilege. In the vast majority of cases that get any publicity at all, of course, the person is a public figure so what you say is true, but you can't make a blanket statement that it is always true.