The study first determined whether tort litigation was discussed in the article; 118 of the 249 articles met this criterion. For these articles, the authors coded the types of tort liability mentioned in each article as well as the type and manufacturer of products whenever product liability was mentioned. The study assessed the editorial content of the article by noting common arguments about the "crisis" in the tort system, such as the unavailability of insurance or the litigiousness of American society. The study further noted abstract evaluations of jury trials and of settlement or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. The authors also coded the litigants' status as individuals, government, or businesses; the injuries and losses that plaintiffs had sustained; the location of the case; the determination of liability; and whether a judge or jury had made this determination. Also recorded were compensatory and punitive damage award amounts, if specified, or more commonly, just the total award. Compared to objective data on tort cases, the study found that the magazine articles considerably overrepresented the relative frequency of controversial forms of litigation (product liability and medical malpractice), the proportion of disputes resolved by trial rather than settlement, the plaintiff victory rate at trial, and the median and mean jury awards. This article discusses psychological mechanisms by which biases in media coverage could affect the decisionmaking of potential litigants. The results highlight the need for more systematic monitoring and dissemination of reliable data on tort outcomes. 3 tables and 28 references