Can you say “character assassination”?
Still, the development highlights the risk for public figures in waging defamation lawsuits against media companies.
Zimmerman and Howard need to (1) prove that the documentary’s claims against them are false and damaged their reputations and (2) meet the “actual malice” standard for public figures in defamation lawsuits. To that end, they must establish that Al Jazeera America knowingly published false and damaging information or possessed reckless disregard for the information’s truth or falsity. In other words, Zimmerman and Howard need to show much more than the documentary was merely wrong and hurtful—they need to show it was recklessly reported.
Zimmerman and Howard must also attempt to mitigate the risk of public disclosures as their court battle lingers. Their litigation has been going on for five years and is currently at the summary judgment stage before Judge Jackson. Barring a settlement, the case could continue for years, particularly with the prospect of appeals. It remains to be seen what else might be alleged and which types of measures, if any, that MLB and sponsors—Zimmerman and Howard are likely bound by morals clauses in any endorsement deals—take.
Proving a negative is damned near impossible;
“Still, the development highlights the risk for public figures in waging defamation lawsuits against media companies.”
While I certainly trust Al Jazeera far more than any major American media outlet, still, as far as I’m concerned, the idea that the media should be insulated from lawsuits needs to END, and end now...given their treatment of Trump and what happened in this past election.