I actually read today that it was reporting in the Times itself that debunked that whole map myth. I don’t know if that is really true or not, but if it is true (and that would be very easy to check) then “malice” will be a slam dunk to prove. It is damages that might be a sticky wicket, but I’m sure that can be construed constructively.
I'm not sure it really needed to be debunked, it was so absurd on its face. However, if the NYT debunked it, good for them.
I just hope Sarah has a winnable case.
You know how that goes...the accusation on page one Sunday, the correction or retraction hidden on page 46 Thursday.