I was listening to a local radio guy talking about reports about Guiliani in the various bird cage liners that he had been warned by the FBI about being targeted by the Russians and yada yada you’ve probably all read about being retracted now.
The radio guy was panning them for using “anonymous sources” (my “”) and how bad it was for journalism and a thought came to me. It wouldn’t work in all cases, but if a newspaper published something false and was reported from sources, the libeled could demand the source’s name from the paper for a lawsuit. I know in the past sources would be protected but if the information is provably false I would think the papers could either be held liable for publishing something not checked or have to hand over the person that lied to them.
Anyone hear of cases that either succeeded or failed on merits like this?
8 replies on “Libel, Slander and Newspapers”
As far as Sidney she absolutely did NOT say that only idiots would believe her claims about the fraud. That is a lie. She and her attorneys made the legal distinction between her expressing her opinion based on the evidence on the one hand and absolute fact on the other. They said that reasonable people would realize that the case is still being decided. As such, they would form their own opinions based on the evidence from Sidney and other sources as many millions of Americans have. Here is what was said…
***Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further
support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but
view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.***
Far from the FAKE NEWS propagandists in the liberal MSM who LIE and claim that Sidney Powell’s legal defense can be summed up by saying “reasonable people” wouldn’t believe her election fraud claims. A lot of the “journalists” went so far as to say she admitted lying, which is exactly what THEY were doing to the American people…again.
Sidney Powell believes in her case, which she reiterated when responding to the fake news lies.
I always encourage people to leave the fake news cult. It’s hilarious that they criticize Trump supporters, who actually do their research, for being members of a cult and swallowing information without question. Like everything else, the leftists accuse everyone else of what they do. It’s an old propaganda tactic used by Hitler and many other leftists.
=============
“She and others appeared at a rally called “Stop the Steal,” which the Complaint identifies as
a “Georgia political rally.” Id. at ¶ 1. She claimed that she had evidence that the election result was
the “greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world.” Id. at ¶ 181(bb).11
Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language
used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 394
U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are
inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette,
Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged
and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she
based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves
characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60,
97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶
110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. ***Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further
support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but
view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.***”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20520809-sidney-powell-court-filing
I haven’t gone back to retrieve the links, but CNN recently lied outright about Tucker Carlson. He did a story questioning why they were halting the distribution of one of the vaccines if they believed the vaccines were effective. CNN and Fauci then lied and said he was pushing anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory as fake news. No honest interpretation of Tucker’s segment leads to that conclusion.
What Tucker DID say is we should know whether it works or not, and if it works, when can we go back to normal since vaccinations make you immune from getting or spreading a disease. This is EXACTLY what Rep. Jim Jordan was asking flip-flopping Fraud Fauci as he grilled him in front of Congress.
Rather than filing a case for slander or libel, Tucker used his #1 cable news show platform to embarrass CNN even further. If only we all had that luxury, though I do believe the crowdsourcing and crowdsharing of info online is destroying (or has destroyed) the credibility of the lying fake news and establishment politicians.
Great question.
Yeah, the radio host did mention (at least I think he did point out) that Guiliani as a public figure would have a hard time suing for libel but I think it has been discussed in the past that news agencies that keep using the same unreliable sources really show what their goal is.
I forget now if it was something the guys discussed backstage here, or was posted elsewhere, but the question was whether the news would suffer any drawback for being wrong so much, and the answer seems to be that No, they won’t because they are mostly preaching to the choir and the choir doesn’t want accurate news, rather they want their opinions and biases substantiated. I think Steve calls them the infotainment industry since they are providing more entertainment than information.
Infotainment is right! Though I do believe FOX tries to get it right. They’re killing it. Mostly a fan of Tucker. He just interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene who was very frank about the broken failure of a system that Congress has become while expressing sincere sympathy for her fellow Americans as the victims of such ineptitude.
I don’t listen to Hannity much, but I did listen to part of his interview with Caitlyn Jenner last night. She wants to finish the border wall and end sanctuary cities if elected as governor to Calilfornia. The left must be losing their minds today.
I like Ingraham and Gutfield too. Problem is there’s so much more frank and open content from individual content creators like Bill on YouTube (and now other providers). There’s more of a connection, and it’s easier to trust them as upstarts with more to lose if they make a mistake.
Still haven’t forgotten FOX’s Election Night blunder calling Arizona for Beijing Biden, but haven’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I don’t have cable/sat so I don’t watch the FOX stuff generally. The impression I’ve gotten is that some hosts on Fox are quite good and try to be factual, while the top brass and some of the other infected shows are less so, the election night coverage as an example.
I have the feeling that journolism as an industry is going to have a really hard time getting back into a profitable model. The “chase a squirrel” fake news infotainment is certainly making money on some shows but until they get back to reporters working stories, gathering facts and presenting trust-able reporting where people can buy a subscription to know what is going on and not be spoonfed the line of the minute, not much will change. That means some companies will have to accept being scooped and people being willing to wait 2 hours to hear that the latest shooter wasn’t a MAGA hat wearing white guy but someone not clouded by the fog of immediacy.
Probably none of that will happen until the current companies go into bankruptcy and new companies are formed with new models to fill the gaps. Might be people like Andy Ngo, Austin Bay and James O’Keefe start a new Reuters / AP like network.
This is where you run into the defense that Sidney Powell is using andTucker Carlson and FOX in general have used in the past along with Rachel Maddown, Don Imus and others. As I understand it, it basically comes down to the fact that it’s really hard to prove the reporter had intent given the wiggle room that at least part of their reporting is opinion based on the facts at hand…
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
I don’t agree with NPR’s criticism of Tucker, (out of context, of course), but I think the story might answer your question.
Interesting thought. I do think someone would need to be sued. Maybe both? But either being sued themselves or giving up the source would be an interesting dilemma for the media.
Prediction: Follow the money. Principles or money? Heck money is the principle. Source will be given up.
Yeah, “make it hurt” usually ends up being “make it cost money”. We’ll have to see where the Veritas lawsuits end up.