WhatFinger

Whatever happened to circling the wagons?

Palin's defamation case against the New York Times is pretty strong, says . . . the Washington Post?

By Dan Calabrese ——--June 29, 2017

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

As enthusiastic as we are about the prospect of Sarah Palin sticking it to the New York Times in a defamation suit, it's typically very difficult for a public figure to win such a case against a media outlet. The law is written to give broad protections to the media, and requires the plaintiff to show not only that the statement in question was defamatory, but that the media outlet knew it was defamatory and made it anyway out of malice. That's usually a very difficult thing to prove. So you'd think that other liberal journalists who are part of the east coast establishment would be dismissive of Gov. Palin's chances. But in the case of liberal Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple, you'd be wrong:
The complaint, submitted by law firms in New York and Tampa, takes direct aim at the state of knowledge at the New York Times editorial board: “At the time of publication,” it reads, “The Times knew and had published pieces acknowledging that there was no connection between Mrs. Palin and Loughner’s 2011 shooting. Moreover, The Times’ false statements about the link between Mrs. Palin and the Loughner shooting stood in stark contrast to how The Times treated speculation about political motives behind Hodgkinson’s rampage: The Times concluded that there was not a connection between Hodgkinson and his professed penchant for Democratic stances sufficient to warrant implicating Democrats or the Bernie Sanders campaign as inciting factors for Hodgkinson’s attack.”
The difference in the way the Times treated the Hodgkinson story is interesting, and could help to prove political bias. But does anyone seriously have any doubts about that where the New York Times is concerned? Proving that the Times has a liberal bias isn't going to win Palin the case. She has to prove they knowingly made a false, defamatory statement about her and didn't care that it was false.

Proving that the Times has a liberal bias isn't going to win Palin the case

Can she actually prove that? It's possible. It was easy enough for Wemple to look through the Times's news coverage and show that they knew there was no link between Palin and Loughner or any other aspect of the Giffords shooting. I suppose Times's lawyers could argue that members of the editorial board may not have known just because a news story written by someone else made it plain. But that's going to be a hard argument to sell considering that the editorial board is supposed to represent the editorial leadership of the paper. If there's an effective defense for the Times, it is probably for them to argue that they were only referencing that the association had been made at the time, and not that they were actually making the assertion in the editorial that there was a link. But that's hard to square with what they actually wrote:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. 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. Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate

I wonder how much of a judgment it would take to put the Times into bankruptcy and liquidation

There was no caveat or clarification that made it clear Palin was not connected to the shooting in any way, and in fact that Loughner in all likelihood had never seen the PAC map, nor did he know anything about it. The Times simply mentioned the one fact in concert with the other fact in a clear implication that there was a connection between the two. They quickly changed the editorial when they were called out for it, but that doesn't change the fact that they published it in the first place. Regardless of all this, it is still very hard for a public figure to win a defamation case against the media, and it will be harder still if Palin has to convince a jury in New York City. But if ever the law was on the side of a plaintiff, this would seem to be the case. And if even the Times's peers at the Washington Post think so, well. I wonder how much of a judgment it would take to put the Times into bankruptcy and liquidation. A guy can dream, right?
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored