It's Official: Press can say anything they want, any lie, any time...

[DKW 86 7,437]

Judge dismisses Sarah Palin's lawsuit against New York Times

Please note that the NYT only issued the mild, half-hearted "correction" after being skewered by media across the globe. The editorial remained up to this day.  

 

Quote

 

In the editorial, which was published online the day of the shooting at a congressional baseball practice this June, the editorial board suggested that Jared Lee Loughner, the man who carried out the Tucson massacre, was incited by a map from Palin's PAC's ad, which placed crosshairs over the congressional districts of several Democratic lawmakers, including Giffords'.
There is, in fact, no evidence that Loughner even saw the map, much less that he was motivated by it. The Times issued a correction the next day, but Palin filed her suit two weeks later.

...

At the hearing earlier this month, Bennet told Palin attorney Ken Turkel that the editorial was written under a tight deadline, and that he didn't know whether Loughner had seen the map from Palin's PAC, nor was he aware of the reporting indicating that there was no clear link between Loughner and political incitement. He also said he was shocked to see readers thought the editorial accused Palin of contributing to Loughner's actions. (OMG, is there anyone in America so stupid as to believe that?)

Turkel and fellow Palin attorney Shane Vogt, both of whom represented pro wrestler Hulk Hogan in his invasion of privacy lawsuit against Gawker last year, asserted that Bennet turned "a blind-eye to the truth," and that the Times editorial board used the June shooting "as a pulpit to advance their narratives on gun control and political rhetoric."

Palin's attorneys also made extensive reference to a 2010 column by the New York Times' Charles Blow, who wrote at the time that liberals talk about the former Alaska governor to "drive viewership and Web clicks."

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

There is no doubt in my mind the NYT did it to specifically hurt Palin and to pump up viewership. That said I agree with the Judges ruling. He basically gives the media a lot of latitude when dealing with political people which has been the standard for years.

The NYT has basically forgotten the Journalism 101 class they all took years ago about being objective and reporting the news to become a political paper as opposed to a newspaper.  That is one of the reason's viewership has diminished and keeps on diminishing.

[AUDub 11,164]

The judge applied a rule. NYT is liable if they made a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its falsity. Palin could not prove the elements needed to hold the NYT liable.

This isn't some sort of free pass to turn journalism into the Wild West. This is just an effort to ensure political speech is not chilled by litigious political figures that turn to the courts to quash dissent.

[DKW 86 7,437]

So the NYT lying about something they KNEW to be untrue is okay? Strange days indeed.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

There is no doubt in my mind the NYT did it to specifically hurt Palin and to pump up viewership. That said I agree with the Judges ruling. He basically gives the media a lot of latitude when dealing with political people which has been the standard for years.

The NYT has basically forgotten the Journalism 101 class they all took years ago about being objective and reporting the news to become a political paper as opposed to a newspaper.  That is one of the reason's viewership has diminished and keeps on diminishing.

Just as an FYI, the NYT readership is up to record numbers right now.  Also, this wasn't reporting, it was an editorial.  There's a major difference between the two.

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

The judge applied a rule. NYT is liable if they made a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its falsity. Palin could not prove the elements needed to hold the NYT liable.

This isn't some sort of free pass to turn journalism into the Wild West. This is just an effort to ensure political speech is not chilled by litigious political figures that turn to the courts to quash dissent.

This is 100% correct.  Libel/Slander law has always heavily favored the press to protect against constant litigation.  The judge here merely upheld multiple long-standing Supreme Court rulings.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Just as an FYI, the NYT readership is up to record numbers right now.  Also, this wasn't reporting, it was an editorial.  There's a major difference between the two.

You are correct I was wrong about readership numbers. Editorial versus news reporting doesn't make much difference in this case. I said I agreed with the Judges ruling as You mentioned in the second part about Libel/Slander always favoring the press. It always has and I hope it continues to. That doesn't change my opinion that they did it on purpose.

This is 100% correct.  Libel/Slander law has always heavily favored the press to protect against constant litigation.  The judge here merely upheld multiple long-standing Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

DKW....re. your title of the OP,,,,,,,,,,,isn't this what Trump has been saying all along? Here is a good example of of refuting the lies in detail.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/30/trump-attorney-delivers-point-by-point-rebuttal-totally-false-dossier.html

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

35 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

DKW....re. your title of the OP,,,,,,,,,,,isn't this what Trump has been saying all along?

Except that Trump himself can tell any lie at any time.  He often says something that is completely false and then follows it up "well I don't know" or "maybe" as if to absolve himself from the comment.  If you're going to hold the NYT and other outlets to that standard, then you need to do the same for Trump.  He has told far too many easily verifiable falsehoods to be throwing stones at anyone.  Here's just a small list:

- Arab-Americans celebrated in New Jersey while the towers came down

- Widespread voter fraud in the election that he won 

- The inauguration crowd size

- Hillary gave 20% of our uranium supply to Russia.

Here's a great tracker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/22/president-trumps-list-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except that Trump himself can tell any lie at any time.  He often says something that is completely false and then follows it up "well I don't know" or "maybe" as if to absolve himself from the comment.  If you're going to hold the NYT and other outlets to that standard, then you need to do the same for Trump.  He has told far too many easily verifiable falsehoods to be throwing stones at anyone.  Here's just a small list:

- Arab-Americans celebrated in New Jersey while the towers came down

- Widespread voter fraud in the election that he won 

- The inauguration crowd size

- Hillary gave 20% of our uranium supply to Russia.

Here's a great tracker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/22/president-trumps-list-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/

 

So I guess you want to ignore Obama's lies?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

[TexasTiger 12,990]

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Judge dismisses Sarah Palin's lawsuit against New York Times

Please note that the NYT only issued the mild, half-hearted "correction" after being skewered by media across the globe. The editorial remained up to this day.  

 

https://www.amazon.com/Absence-Malice-Paul-Newman/dp/B00441GYOM

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

17 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So I guess you want to ignore Obama's lies?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

Not at all.  Call him out on his crap too.  Don't be so obtuse as to try and lump me in with "everything Trump bad, everything Obama good".  I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but I try to look at things starting from a centrist POV and let facts lead me to conclusions.

Here's the difference though between Obama's lies and Trump's lies.  Obama didn't try to delegitimize the news sources calling him out on his crap by calling them fake.  He may have disagreed with an organization's assessment (he did several times with Fox), but he never questioned their legitimacy as a news source.  Trump is doing exactly that with those who news outlets don't fall in lock-step with him.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

27 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not at all.  Call him out on his crap too.  Don't be so obtuse as to try and lump me in with "everything Trump bad, everything Obama good".  I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but I try to look at things starting from a centrist POV and let facts lead me to conclusions.

Here's the difference though between Obama's lies and Trump's lies.  Obama didn't try to delegitimize the news sources calling him out on his crap by calling them fake.  He may have disagreed with an organization's assessment (he did several times with Fox), but he never questioned their legitimacy as a news source.  Trump is doing exactly that with those who news outlets don't fall in lock-step with him.

Well I will just say that I think the OP by my long time freind DKW (David) had to do with the media. You chose to divert it to Trump. So be it. Right now I am much more concerned with the people of Texas and Louisiana and the friends  and relatives I have have there  than I am about politicians.

[DKW 86 7,437]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except that Trump himself can tell any lie at any time.  He often says something that is completely false and then follows it up "well I don't know" or "maybe" as if to absolve himself from the comment.  If you're going to hold the NYT and other outlets to that standard, then you need to do the same for Trump.  He has told far too many easily verifiable falsehoods to be throwing stones at anyone.  Here's just a small list:

- Arab-Americans celebrated in New Jersey while the towers came down

- Widespread voter fraud in the election that he won 

- The inauguration crowd size

- Hillary gave 20% of our uranium supply to Russia.

Here's a great tracker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/22/president-trumps-list-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/

 

Trump is Trump. he has been a blow hard windbag for 3 decades plus. He has never been revered as factual his entire life. The NYT wrote an editorial they knew as 100% BS the moment that wrote it. This story has been debugged for 6 long years. It was a smear from get-go. 

17 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Bennet told Palin attorney Ken Turkel that the editorial was written under a tight deadline, and that he didn't know whether Loughner had seen the map from Palin's PAC, nor was he aware (of six years of reporting) of the reporting indicating that there was no clear link between Loughner and political incitement. He also said he was shocked to see readers thought the editorial accused Palin of contributing to Loughner's actions.

Anyone here dumb enough to believe this? Anyone?..........<crickets>.......thought so...

[DKW 86 7,437]

What did the NYT actually say:  NYT wrote something they KNEW to be 100% BS in an effort to make some kind of false equivalence.

 

Quote

 

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. ( It was absolutely debunked in the WAPO Article attached.) 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 crosshairs.

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.

 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

49 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Well I will just say that I think the OP by my long time freind DKW (David) had to do with the media. You chose to divert it to Trump. So be it. Right now I am much more concerned with the people of Texas and Louisiana and the friends  and relatives I have have there  than I am about politicians.

Actually you brought up Trump first, not me.  I'm just asking for the calls of accountability to go both ways while choosing to point out his many examples of falsehoods.

And best wishes to your friends and family being hit by the weather.  I live in Texas myself (about 3 hours from Houston) and even though I'm not directly affected, it's amazing to see the people of this state come together in time of crisis.  My wife and her friend will be heading down to Orange, Texas next week to help out with recovery once things settle down some.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

50 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Trump is Trump. he has been a blow hard windbag for 3 decades plus. He has never been revered as factual his entire life. The NYT wrote an editorial they knew as 100% BS the moment that wrote it. This story has been debugged for 6 long years. It was a smear from get-go. 

I find you to be a reasonable person and I enjoy reading your thoughts.  Sometimes that's hard to find around here

Whether or not you or I understand that he is blow hard is irrelevant.  There are enough folks out there who take what he says at face-value, even when they are blatant lies.  Same thing I mentioned to Proud, I just want the calls for accountability to go both ways.  It can't be lie, lie, lie from POTUS, then a media outlet screws up once and we get all up in arms.  It should also be noted that the NYT immediately retracted the story in their next edition.  That can't be said for Trump.

[DKW 86 7,437]

Agreed. Trump is the same for decades though. He was a know it all when he identified as a Democrat for 30 years and he is a know it all as a Republican. He is an unethical businessman all the while. I find it funny/sick that the best the some folks, even around here, can do is bark the party line. "Trump is Republican, therefore Trump is evil."No. Trump was a sexist ass as a Democrat. When he was out "grabbing them by the P___Y," back in 2005, he was still a Democrat at that point NO ONE on the Dem side said a word about it. 

[TexasTiger 12,990]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Agreed. Trump is the same for decades though. He was a know it all when he identified as a Democrat for 30 years and he is a know it all as a Republican. He is an unethical businessman all the while. I find it funny/sick that the best the some folks, even around here can do it bark the party line. "Trump is Republican, therefore Trump is evil."No. Trump was a sexist ass as a Democrat. When he was out "grabbing them by the P___Y," back in 2005, he was still a Democrat at that point NO ONE on the Dem side said a word about it. 

He was. But now he's playing exclusively to the Republican base and they're the only ones giving him cover for it.

As for the 2005 comment, it didn't surface until 2016 and he was never a Democrat candidate for any office.

Trump has always been a loser. Whatever party he claimed was pretty irrelevant before he really got involved in politics. In Manhattan real estate circles it probably makes sense to call yourself a Democrat. It's clear now, if not before, that his only principle is self-interest.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

To each his own. I still support Trump over any Dem I can think of who might be a challenger. He has sure done a great job seeing that all the fed agencies were fully engaged and cooperating with state and local authorities re. Hurricane Harvey. How is this self interest? Sure beats the operations during Katrina and Sandy.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On 8/31/2017 at 7:22 AM, TexasTiger said:

He was. But now he's playing exclusively to the Republican base and they're the only ones giving him cover for it.

As for the 2005 comment, it didn't surface until 2016 and he was never a Democrat candidate for any office.

Trump has always been a loser. Whatever party he claimed was pretty irrelevant before he really got involved in politics. In Manhattan real estate circles it probably makes sense to call yourself a Democrat. It's clear now, if not before, that his only principle is self-interest.

Trump just announced he is giving $1 million of his own money to the Harvey recovery effort. Guess that shoots down your last sentence.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Trump just announced he is giving $1 million of his own money to the Harvey recovery effort. Guess that shoots down your last sentence.

Hardly.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hardly.

Of course not, you NEVER admit you are wrong.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Of course not, you NEVER admit you are wrong.

You're too ignorant to assess the value of his promise. Start with this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-asked-for-60-million-extra-for-trump-era-travel-and-protection-documents-show/2017/03/22/0967e7b6-0a85-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.e36d5999cec7

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You're too ignorant to assess the value of his promise. Start with this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-asked-for-60-million-extra-for-trump-era-travel-and-protection-documents-show/2017/03/22/0967e7b6-0a85-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.e36d5999cec7

 

Nice deflection but it doesn't change the fact you made a statement I proved wrong. Then you resort to insults. It's difficult and a waste of time to try to discuss anything with someone who thinks they are perfect. I should know better than to ever respond to one of your posts. I will try harder to resist starting..........now.

 

[TitanTiger 20,508]

17 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Trump just announced he is giving $1 million of his own money to the Harvey recovery effort. Guess that shoots down your last sentence.

Not anymore than the charitable efforts of Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestinian areas shoots down the fact that they are terrorist organizations.