Home » The NY Times claims it made an “honest mistake” about Palin

Comments

The <i>NY Times</i> claims it made an “honest mistake” about Palin — 38 Comments

  1. If that’s the best defense the top legal minds in NYC could come up with, then start writing a check. Liability is a lock. Only a question now of how much.

  2. Cornhead:

    They can’t come up with other evidence because there is none.

    What I predict they will do, however (if there’s no settlement), is to plead that their language was a lot more vague in its implications than it actually was, and to also claim that their retraction sufficed to show their lack of malice.

  3. Pingback:Breadcrumbs in the Labyrinth - American Digest

  4. NYT Motto: All The News that Fits Our Agenda, Including Honestly Mistaken Lies.

  5. It’s an honest mistake since they honestly believe Loughner was honestly targetting Giffords based on the map. They honestly feel Palin meant physical violence against those indicated on the map. They honestly despise Palin and honestly believe all political violence is instigated and promoted by conservative talk radio, web sites and politicians.

    They honestly believe antifa and BLM violence is only a reaction to violence perpetrated on them by police and alt-right groups. They honestly believe their political opponents should be arrested for this incitement against them.

    They honestly believe they are the sole arbiters of truth and their only real honest mistake was to print what they honestly believe, regardless of any actual evidence.

  6. Why were these “honest mistakes” always a one way ticket where conservatives got portrayed negatively? When are the MSM ever going to make a honest mistake in which a conservative get praised or a democrat get criticized?

  7. One of the Powerline guys pointed out that while the Palin’s case is strong, her legal team may have erred trying the case in New York where the jury may return a partisan, unjust verdict.

    Forget it, Jake, it’s New York.

  8. It wasn’t a “story” it was an editorial. There’s a YUUUUGE difference there. NYTimes screwed up & knows it. They’re hoping to wriggle out of it, 1st by trying to get the suit dissmissed, and failing that, by offering a large payout. Palin’s already hinting that she won’t do anything less than a trial.

    Discovery will be amazingly funny…

  9. @Dave: Because by honest mistake in these cases they were honest about what they think (of conservatives) and it turns out being honest at this juncture was a mistake.

  10. The standard of proof for defamation isn’t higher for a newspaper. It’s higher when someone is making a statement about a public figure (functionally similar, since newspapers rarely write about non-public figures).

    I just wanted to clear that one thing up. Newspapers don’t have special rights or higher burdens of proof. The first amendment protects everyone (in theory).

  11. I’m afraid neo is misrembering what she learned in law school. It’s not that the standard is higher for defamation suits against a newspaper than a private citizen; it’s that the standard for defamation suits by a public figure is higher than for suits by a private citizen. Public figures must prove malice, which is a term of art meaning, in this context, knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Some may recall that Time magazine defeated a suit by Ariel Sharon some years ago, since the jury found that Time had been negligent but not reckless.

  12. Here’s hoping the Barracuda takes a big check to the bank. But it is unlikely. She should have sued the rag in Alaska.

  13. “Actual Malice” is a much better book title than “Honest Mistake”. On those grounds I endorse the former.

  14. There is a term for someone having a set predetermined fixed ideas on a group of people – its called Prejudice. A “Honest Mistake” based of your prejudice against someone regardless of whether there was existence of any other more meticulous reasons like intentionally try to damage the republican brand by tying the shooter to conservatives knowing he was crazy is defamation.

  15. Doesn’t the MSM disparage bloggers because they just make things up while the old-line media has ‘layers and layers’ of “fact checkers”? How’s that working out?

  16. y81; Eric Oden:

    Correct, of course. My bad; I forget to add “by a public figure” against a newspaper—or actually, against anyone, (although almost all such legal disputes have involved newspapers, and Sullivan certainly did). Thanks; I’ll fix it.

    But to Eric Oden: an interesting element of the law here is that the vast majority of the cases (including Sullivan itself) involve public figures vis a vis newspapers and other media—in other words, the press. And yet the rule is not limited to them. I think the legal focus in the cases has always been on the press, however, and a lot of the reasoning in Sullivan to justify the ruling referred to the need to protect freedom of the press.

    See this:

    It is important to note that while Court decisions regarding this rule have primarily addressed issues related to freedom of the press, the rule applies to any statement, whether made in a newspaper or to an acquaintance on the street. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979).

  17. I am reminded of the “fool or knave” argument. Consider first the “fool” argument. That was an honest mistake for an ignoramus. Those of us who keep up with current events knew 6 years ago that the Palin “crosshairs” connection with the Gifford shooting was entirely bogus. Perhaps this says something about how little reporters know these days. Recall what Ben Rhodes Obama’s “deputy national security adviser for strategic communications” (That is a job title straight out of “Yes, Prime Minister) said: White House official on some reporters’ overseas expertise: ‘They literally know nothing.’

    All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

    What Ben Rhodes said about reporters on foreign affairs apparently can be said about reporters on domestic affairs.
    If the NYT employs fools for reporters, the NYT should suffer the consequences of employing fools: libel suits.

    A high school classmate of my brother has worked for the NYT. He is neither ignorant nor stupid. Which is why I doubt the NYT person involved was an ignorant fool.

    I find the “knave” argument more compelling. I find it very hard to believe that a NYT reporter or editor was unaware that the Palin “crosshairs” connection with the Gifford shooting has been debunked for years. After all, I don’t keep up with current events to the degree that a NYT reporter would, and I knew years ago that the “crosshairs” connection was debunked. My take is that some ideologue at the NYT put in the Palin “crosshairs” connection deliberately, and a wiser editor took it out several hours later.

  18. It will settle or die. If the judge allows the suit to go forward and tells the parties to begin prepping for discovery, the NYT will immediately settle at any cost. I heavily doubt they would submit themselves to the ability of the attorneys for Palin to request all of their e-mails going back to 2008 in regards to her. Most likely, the leaks of those e-mails would be incredibly damaging to the paper, and they would of course expect those e-mails to leak.

  19. Just as an aside the “crosshairs” were in fact not crosshairs…they are surveyor symbols that the mapping software they used to make the map used as a default symbol.

    And no…it wasn’t an honest mistake.

  20. JeffreyL:

    It takes two to settle.

    What if Palin doesn’t want the money, no matter how much? I can’t read her mind and I don’t know what she intends, but it is at least a possibility that no matter how much they offer, she’d rather go through with a trial.

  21. Have they ever made a mistake where they accidentally said something nice about Sarah Palin or any non-liberal?

    If every ‘mistake’ they make about conservatives is always a negative then who would believe they are mistakes?

  22. IIRC, the ‘Palin inspired the shooter’ story was one of those coordinated fake stories used to score political points off of a crime (“Never let a crisis go to waste!” – Rahm Emanuel). Wasn’t this the one where the Democrats printed up T-shirts for memorial service attendees, they were so gleeful about the opportunity to politicize it?

    Who started it, who coordinated it, one can only imagine. Well, it’s a lot easier to imagine after the DNC & Podesta email leaks, and Ben Rhodes bragging about how easy it was to spin the media. This media/Democrat narrative collusion has been going on for so long it would not surprise me if the pliant, ignorant press is now actively believing their own bull. How many believe Palin said “I can see Russia from my house?” How may believe GW Bush had a fake turkey in Afghanistan, that GHW Bush had never seen a grocery store scanner, etc.? This is what happens when an institutions signs on to spread propaganda. Not that this makes what the NYT did “honest” or a “mistake.”

  23. Re: It takes two to settle. I guess Sarah Palin has a fair amount of money these days, but the NYT has a lot more, and litigation is very expensive. If the NYT offers a significant amount, plus a groveling apology, I think she will take it.

    As to whether we get there, Judge Rakoff is very liberal, but I have a hard time seeing this case disposed of on a motion to dismiss, and in that case there’s the potential for lots of very expensive discovery before anyone could move for summary judgment.

  24. Sam L. Says:
    July 10th, 2017 at 2:17 pm
    An “honest” mistake? I think not. No way, no how.

    Is that anything like “honest loyalty”?

  25. After seeing what happened in the Mann v. Steyn case this could drag on for years, which would actually I think be in Palin’s favor, as keeping the NYT’s lyin’ and spinnin’ in the news is fine with me.
    (Mann sued Steyn for defamation in an interesting obverse case, since in that instance we are rooting for the “press” over the “public figure”, but the case is in a DC court with a judge who knows that Mann will lose at trial and is deliberately dragging things out hoping Steyn will go away – IMO)

  26. Herb Says:
    July 10th, 2017 at 4:56 pm
    @Dave: Because by honest mistake in these cases they were honest about what they think (of conservatives) and it turns out being honest at this juncture was a mistake.

    * * *
    Isn’t that the definition of a gaffe?

  27. Tuvea Says:
    July 10th, 2017 at 6:21 pm
    Doesn’t the MSM disparage bloggers because they just make things up while the old-line media has ‘layers and layers’ of “fact checkers”? How’s that working out?
    * * *
    The WHCA is putting their thumb on the scales.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/341385-wh-correspondents-association-considering-change-to-bylaws-that-would-affect

    “The White House Correspondents Association is considering a change to its bylaws that would keep outlets like Breitbart News from attaining a higher level of membership within the group, preventing them from taking part in decision-making.”

  28. Lizzy Says:
    July 10th, 2017 at 8:37 pm

    This is what happens when an institutions signs on to spread propaganda. Not that this makes what the NYT did “honest” or a “mistake.”
    * * *
    It’s getting worse.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-people-hate-the-media-washington-post/

    (after describing a WaPo story I’m sure most of you have seen)
    That’s it. That’s all they have here. The only connection between the left-wing shooter and this repulsive right-wing lunatic who mouths off on a small radio station is the speculation of the host himself.

    The Washington Post built an entire story around this – a story that blames right-wing talk radio for a left-wing crackpot opening fire on a baseball field full of Republicans, because they are Republicans.

    Let that sink in: the Washington Post blames right-wing talk radio for a left-winger’s assassination attempt on Republican politicians.

    No wonder some leading lights in the national media class hears Donald Trump give an ordinary speech taking a few paragraphs to praise the good things about Western civilization, and declare it to really be a farrago of dog-whistling about white supremacy. Left-winger attempts mass murder of Republicans: it’s the fault of right-wing talk radio. Radical Muslim massacres gays and lesbians, and says in a phone call from the murder scene that he’s doing it for ISIS: it’s the fault of Republicans. So, I guess if you get right down to it, Steve Scalise pretty much shot himself – right, Washington Post? Better get a reporter right on that story. It shouldn’t be too hard to nail down, seeing as how you only need a single quote from somebody willing to speculate on the record.

    These people are so lost in their anti-conservative bigotry that they can’t tell up from down or right from wrong.

  29. I’ll be surprised if Palin settles. I doubt she is doing this for the money. This is a high-profile case, with principle at stake, and a good chance of winning; it won’t be hard for her to find a good legal team willing to work pro bono.

  30. It should be noted that the case the NYT relies on for protection from defamation suits — New York Times Company v. Sullivan, a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1964 — provides First Amendment protection to corporations (such as the “New York Times Company”) as well as individuals. Obama, the Times, etc., etc. to the contrary notwithstanding, the Citizens United case did not extend First Amendment rights to corporations for the first time.

  31. When it comes to subtly mocking or lambasting any conservative there is no “honest mistake” by the NYT. It’s deliberate.

  32. I would have said that the Left was doing this intentionally… but apparently a lot of people are in the majority here jumping on the band wagon for the same point, so I don’t have to write it any more. Used to have to write that line every single time Hussein did something from 2008 to 2012.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>