1. Steyn wrote something negative about Global Warmist Michael Mann in National Review.
2. Michael Mann sued Steyn and National Review for slander.
3. National Review wanted to settle the suit. Steyn wanted to pursue a counter-suit.
4. They agreed to go their separate ways.
4.
Climate change has nothing to do with why Steyn was sacked. Steyn wrote a column that repeated a Bob Hope joke. The Editor said it was evil and homphobic and he didn’t want Steyn spewing his homophobia at NR.
1. Steyn wrote something negative about Global Warmist Michael Mann in National Review.
2. Michael Mann sued Steyn and National Review for slander.
3. National Review wanted to settle the suit. Steyn wanted to pursue a counter-suit.
4. They agreed to go their separate ways.
_____________
Well that clears it up. NR is no McCLeans is it?
I am the Publisher of National Review, for what that is worth, which may not be much to some here, but so be it — this is a Free Republic after all. That said, while we can be free with opinions, we can’t be free with facts.
Specifically: National Review is vigorously fighting this suit by Michael Mann. There is no plan or intention or thought of settling.
Mark Steyn has been explicit (on steynonline.com) as to what his diverging legal strategy is — he seeks an immediate trial. We at National Review seek to get this suit dismissed before there is any consideration of a trial. If at this current stage our motions and appeals fail, and this case indeed has to go to trial, then so be it — we will fight there and would very much expect to prevail there (although we expect to prevail sooner).
If you don’t mind I’d like to add, not in a direct response to this post but to some others seen here, that Mark chose to stop writing for NR. He was not “sacked.” The editor and I and others strongly encouraged him to continue writing. Mark and only Mark can speak as to why he made this decision to cease writing for NR. True, he was criticized by an editor (not THE editor) over comments Mark made in a column on the recent Duck Dynasty controversy, but that editor’s criticisms were his alone, and came with no institutional backing. Indeed, I and others strongly criticized that criticism.
Sounds like you might need a scorecard to follow this. Anyway, all that said, we look forward to a day when Mark might again write for us.
My email is jfowler@nationalreview.com if anyone seeks to verify or desires to discuss this or any matter related to NR.