New York Times Ignored Own Fact-checker in Attacking Sarah Palin: Emails

breitbart ^ | JOEL B. POLLAK4 Feb 2022

[MarvinStinson]

The New York Times editorial board ignored its own fact checker when writing a 2011 article that falsely linked Sarah Palin to the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, emails revealed in court showed on Friday.

In 2017, the Times published an editorial attacking Palin in the wake of a mass shooting in which a crazed left-wing gunman had fired at Republican members of Congress at a baseball practice in Virginia, wounding several.

The editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” made the already-debunked false claim: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The map in question showed crosshairs above congressional districts, not people. Palin’s map was virtually identical to those used by Democrats for years, depicting targets atop contested congressional districts.

The map Palin used had also been used during the 2010 congressional elections, months before the Tuscon mass shooting, not simply “before.”

The Times issued a correction, changing the offending sentence to say: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.”

Palin sued for defamation, alleging damage to her reputation.

[MarvinStinson]

The Times attempted to have the lawsuit thrown out, citing the 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which held that a public figure had to show “actual malice” to prevail in a defamation suit.

Practically, that means that a newspaper must not only be wrong, but must know that it is wrong, in order to be liable. That high standard is said to show not just sloppiness, but “reckless disregard” for the truth.

The emails revealed in court on Friday were striking, in that they suggested the Times chose to ignore what it knew was untrue.

[MarvinStinson]

The UK Daily Mail reported:

Damning internal emails sent by members of the New York Times editorial board were made public today during the libel trial brought by Sarah Palin against the newspaper.

The emails were introduced by Palin’s lawyer Shane Vogt as he questioned Elizabeth Williamson, a journalist with the editorial section of the Times who wrote the first draft of the article.

In a message shown to the jury, Jesse Wegman, a member of the NYT editorial board, wrote that he worried the opinion piece that Palin sued over looked like they were trying to ‘sneak in’ a link between her and the 2011 shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords.

…

The emails also show that the editors appear to have ignored the advice of a fact checker who pointed out that the map came out ‘months’ before the shooting – but the article only said ‘before’.

[LuxAerterna]

...said to show not just sloppiness, but “reckless disregard”...

IMHO much of the fake news does indeed show reckless disregard for the truth, including the NY Times.

This is my real beef with the New York Times v. Sullivan.

There's something to be said for not enforcing the strict standards for defamation on public figures. But the garbage put out by CNN, the New York Times and the rest of the fake news swamp goes FAR beyond this.

[Tupelo]

I pains me to say it but, since this is the mighty New York Times, the trial is being held in New York, the judge is a Clinton appointee and the plaintiff is the hated Sarah Palin, I would not hold my breath that former Gov. Palin will win.

[Gay State Conservative]

Palin? New York City jury? She doesn’t have a prayer.

[SunTzuWu]

"The map in question showed crosshairs above congressional districts,"

The cross hairs in question were the style that surveyors use to mark locations on a map. NOT the kind you find in a rifle scope. The press got two lies for the price of one in that bit of slander.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Fart checkers are overrated. Low I.Q. idiots who can’t get real jobs.

[firebrand]

but must know that it is wrong, in order to be liable

Many of the accused have admitted or shown that they wanted to hurt the person they were accused of libeling. You have to watch your words and actions.

[TnTnTn]

NYT is fake news and a slime rag with a political agenda…

[Dilbert56]

She won’t prevail in the lawsuit but this discovery process is the real payoff.

[daniel1212]

"The Times attempted to have the lawsuit thrown out, citing the 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which held that a public figure had to show “actual malice” to prevail in a defamation suit. "

Well, “actual malice” to prevails on both sides with intent to malign and with frequent misrepresentations being a matter of degrees, and thus one is not flagrant enough to prevail.