An unusual yet heavy snowstorm had hit Portland, Oregon, in December. It had paralyzed the city for several days. The citizens and the press had criticized the city's public works department because they failed to clear the snow on the roads. This resulted in slippery roads that led to pedestrians getting injured and cars getting damaged. Businesses also incurred losses because their customers could not travel downtown. The Portland Patriot was especially brutal in criticizing the workers of the public works department in their editorials. One of them is as follows:

Here it is the 21st Century and the city's road crews can't even handle a simple snowstorm. How many dollars were lost by businesses because their customers couldn't get downtown? How many cars were damaged and pedestrians injured because of the slippery roads and sidewalks? And how many members of the road crews sat on their duffs, in cafes, drinking coffee and eating donuts, while their plows were parked for long periods on the streets outside, while the rest of us struggled to go on with our lives. Their actions were criminal, causing untold harm to hundreds of people. Supervisors reported all crews were working 16 hours a day. But there is ample evidence that many of these workers simply sat on the sidelines, waiting for the snow and ice to melt. It is time to take action against these incompetent clods; fire the whole bunch.

The city had employed eighty-seven workers to clear the ice and snow off the roads. Seven of them had filed a libel suit against the Portland Patriot for condemning the workers. The workers argued that the following charges are defamatory: their actions were criminal, they drank coffee and ate donuts instead of doing their jobs, and they are incompetent.

The Patriot raised two arguments in its defense of the libel suit. First, it argued that the city workers are public officials and that they will have to show evidence of actual malice to prevail and win the case. Also, the Patriot argued that the group of 87 members is a large group and that individual members of the group cannot prove their identification. How would a court rule on these arguments?

1. Would the group qualify as public officials? Why or why not?

2. Which of the Patriot's statements would be potentially defamatory?

3. Who would most likely prevail in the suit and why?