it's spelled P E R J U R Y
Posted on 08/16/2017 6:56:25 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Editorial page editor James Bennet testified on Wednesday as the judge weighs the newspaper's motion to dismiss.
New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet testified Wednesday in an open hearing that he did not mean to imply a "causal link" between a political action committee tied to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and a 2011 attack on a then-congresswoman and others.
Palin, who served as John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, sued the Times on June 27 over a June 14 editorial that, before it was corrected, said that "the link to political incitement was clear" between a graphic produced by Palin's PAC and the murderous rampage of Jared Loughner. In Palin's suit, it was argued that the Times defamed her by suggesting that Loughner acted against then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords because a "stylized target" was placed over her district by the PAC as one to target for electoral gain.
..
Bennet, during the hearing, revealed that he was not the primary writer of the editorial, but substantially rewrote the draft that was submitted to him by a Washington, D.C.-based editorial writer, Elizabeth Williamson. Williamson was not available to testify on Wednesday, but the judge asked both parties to decide if they'd like her to testify in the near future.
"What I wasn't trying to say was that there was a direct causal link between this map and the shooting," Bennet said. "What I was concerned about was the overall climate of political incitement."
He continued: "I didn't mean to suggest that Loughner wasn't responsible. ... I did not think that Jared Loughner was acting because of this map."
(Excerpt) Read more at hollywoodreporter.com ...
it's spelled P E R J U R Y
It makes me angry that these guys will no doubt get away with their lies because they’re the “press”. A very loose term for what they really are!
Stalinists lie. Always
"What I wasn't trying to say was that there was a direct causal link between this map and the shooting"That's precisely what you were trying to say.
This should sink the NYT:
“Bennet said that he became extremely concerned about the content of the editorial late on the night of June 14, after seeing criticisms of it on social media, and spent the early hours of June 15 frantically attempting to have his team determine whether a connection between the Palin PAC and the shooter’s motives actually existed.”
So, he admits publishing something with no idea whether it was true, then trying in vain to find something to support the NYT’s allegations. That would seem to be a textbook example of reckless disregard of the truth that would make a newspaper liable to a public figure for defamation.
Bennet’s name does not appear on the list I took from a FR entry some time ago:
From: “Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 9”
Subject: JournoList: 146 Names Confirmed (with News Organizations)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:09:20 -0700
This guy was actually an editor at The Atlantic at the time of the shooting. You know, The Atlantic, former home of blogger Andrew Sullivan, he of the obsession with Palin’s uterus and Trig’s parentage. That one.
Then he moved from that Palin-attacking rag to the NYT Palin-attacking rag.
The actual writer of the editorial did not testify. She must not be as smooth of a liar as he, so he testified in her stead.
/cynicism meter off now
Agree.
This left wing nut is full of crap.
But you never know what’s going to happen when a judge gets involved in making decisions. A vast majority of judges are as left wing as media and the democrats.
OBAM you say? ... not this time
I figured this guy needed to be painted with a broad brush as being part of the LSM cabal.
Thanks for looking him up.
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.