ABC News reporter concluded 'there was a story to do' on beef product

Mark Walker | Argus Leader

Show Caption Hide Caption Trial involving BPI and ABC news begins A closer look at the case involving Dakota Dunes-based BPI and ABC News.

ELK POINT — The ABC News correspondent whose reporting prompted a multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuit from a South Dakota beef company defended his reporting in a video deposition played at the trial Wednesday.

“I had come to the conclusion that there was a story to do,” national correspondent Jim Avila said in the taped interview.

Avila sat among the broadcast company's lawyers in the basement courtroom in Elk Point as his video deposition played for jurors.

In the video, Beef Products Inc. attorney Dan Webb questioned Avila about the credibility of his USDA sources and statements he’d made in emails to coworkers.

Avila’s reporting on BPI's Lean Finely Textured Beef aired on “World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer.” Sawyer had been a defendant, but was dismissed before trial.

The news report featured interviews from two former USDA scientist who objected to BPI’s product being placed in ground beef and took their complaints to their superiors.

“Two very distinguished scientists looked at this product and said it doesn’t belong in ground beef,” Avila said in the disposition.

Webb asked Avila if he found the statements the men made to be credible.

Avila said scientists provided the same information The New York Times and The Daily with no retractions or corrections ever surfacing. Avila said he had no reason to believe his sources weren’t credible and interviewed them before pitching the story.

Webb also turned the jury’s attention to internal emails between Avila and producers at ABC News and posts on his Twitter account in an attempt to portray him as biased.

The emails revealed that ABC personnel made unflattering comments about Lean Finely Textured Beef among themselves.

Webb repeatedly asked Avila if he was biased towards BPI’s product.

“No,” Avila responded to the questions.

Avila was also questioned on his decision to use the term “pink slime” instead of Lean Finely Textured Beef. Webb, in the video, asked Avila read the definition of the word slime in court: “a moist, soft, and slippery substance, typically regarded as repulsive.”

Avila was shown photos of Lean Finely Textured Beef provided by BPI and asked if thought it looked like slime.

“It looks frozen,” Avila replied.

Avila and the network could be on the hook for as a much as $5.7 billion due to a 1994 South Dakota law that makes it illegal to knowingly disparage agriculture products with falsehoods.

The proceedings will continue on Thursday.

BPI, Inc. vs. ABC News: Previous Coverage

May 31: Jury selection begins in BPI defamation case

June 1: Jury chosen for BPI-ABC trial

June 2: Judge to lawyers in BPI case: Act like whiskey drinkers

June 3: Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC lawsuit

June 5: ABC destroyed reputation with 'pink slime' descriptor, attorney says

June 6: Survey showed people didn't think BPI product was beef

June 7: Beef expert says controversial label for BPI product is false

June 8: Past food safety questions raised at BPI trial

June 9: Nutritional value of BPI beef questioned at trial

June 12: Expert didn't think ABC's Avila wanted both sides of BPI story

June 13: Sawyer called ABC beef reports factual, fair