Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BCrago66
But then they were negligent on their oversight and fact checking. There does appear to be liability... but what the heck do I know?!

LLS

125 posted on 04/06/2012 6:31:35 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: LibLieSlayer

Maybe the law is dumb in this area, but to defame a public figure, simple negligence isn’t sufficient. The plaintiff must prove “actual malice,” i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether X was true or false. It looks the producer of that segment meets that strict standard. But NBC may advance a rogue producer narrative, according to which it would be guilty of is falling for the deception of the evil producer. That’s simple negligence, at worst.

And absent a smoking-gun e-mail or other definitive evidence showing that higher-ups at NBC were in on the deception, NBC just might get away with it.

But that’s a legal analysis.

Public relations might dictate settling quick, because a drawn-out case in which NBC’s DEFENSE is “We’re not guilty because we’re idiots, not deliberate liars” would do much more reputation damage than would a million or so forked over to Zimmerman, cloaked by a confidentiality agreement.


173 posted on 04/06/2012 8:04:22 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson