Posted on 02/10/2022 6:31:48 PM PST by fluorescence
The former editorial page editor of the New York Times is making the same claim about his intent in publishing an outrageous falsehood about Sarah Palin that he made in 2017. If the jury credits his argument in 2022, victims of journalistic malpractice may find it nearly impossible to win libel cases against media organizations.
Former Times editor James Bennet testified this week in the jury trial of Ms. Palin’s defamation case against his former newspaper. Back in 2017, the Times published an editorial containing fake news about the former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate. In the editorial, which followed the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and others, the Times recycled a bogus claim that Ms. Palin had incited Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011. The false allegation hinged on the publication of a map targeting swing congressional districts that was published by a political organization tied to Ms. Palin. The smear had been debunked years ago—including in the pages of the New York Times. There was no evidence that Loughner had ever even seen the map.
The day after publishing its anti-Palin editorial in 2017, the Times corrected it online and admitted there was no evidence tying political rhetoric to the shooting.
The Palin case was initially dismissed by a judge before being reinstated in 2019 by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But during the initial effort to quash the Palin lawsuit, Mr. Bennet went well beyond claiming that errors happen in the rush to publish a daily newspaper. He essentially argued that he didn’t intend to write what his editorial clearly stated.
...
If Mr. Bennet’s argument is credited, media outfits can publish almost anything and then run corrections while claiming they meant no harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The Slimes falling back on the most frequent lie known to man: “I didn’t mean it.”
The behavior of the Slimes is making me think, they think, they may be found guilty.
Here is a republished copy of the article that is not behind a paywall.
https://www.toptechnicalsolutions.com/sarah-palin-the-new-york-times-and-the-oops-defense/
They will lose, and you will hear complaints like, “this will have a chilling effect on journalism and free speech”. Of course, what they will actually be complaining about is that it will have a chilling effect on wildly biased, hit and run, libelous and scurrillous journalism, which is the only type presently taught in schools or practiced by the libs.
There WOULD be another alternative - but the newspuppets would dislike it and the US Jesters System would frown upon it.
I meant to harm her, but not in that way.
-PJ
If this case is being tried in NY with a rat jury, Palin won’t win.
Ya think?
I’m good with co-ownership of the Times. Palin 49%, O’Keefe 51%.
Newspapers should be required to publish retractions in the same page, font and size of the accusation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.