I am sure everyone here is aware of the backtracking CNN is taking re: Russia and Trump collusion stories.

In another arena today, Sarah Palin filed suit against the New York Times for, when editorializing about the Virginia shooting of US Congressman, stating:

Quote: “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,”

I think the Grey Lady is about to learn a very expensive lesson about defamation here. Especially when they fabricate a boogeyman causation for the Giffords shooting. I know Carlos Slim has a deep wallet, but not so sure about the NYT.

Not a Palin fan, but I actually applaud her action to keep an obviously biased editorial board honest. It is interesting to see the libertarian/right fight back just as hard as they've been dumped on.

This puts the CNN issue and actions in a really interesting focus for me.

Has CNN reatracted another story?

I don't think the NYT editorial about Palin rises to the level of defamation (just based on the brief description above). I think 9 times out of 10, it's a loser on summary judgment. This is not to say that it wasn't an irresponsible thing to say, however, even when couched as editorial. I also predict that the NYT doesn't settle this case--especially not in the current climate. But hell, I could be wrong.

(06-27-2017 09:04 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I don't think the NYT editorial about Palin rises to the level of defamation (just based on the brief description above). I think 9 times out of 10, it's a loser on summary judgment. This is not to say that it wasn't an irresponsible thing to say, however, even when couched as editorial. I also predict that the NYT doesn't settle this case--especially not in the current climate. But hell, I could be wrong.

They explicitly equate the actions as motivating a politically-based shooting throughout the article, then later edited the opinion and wrote a disclaimer:

Quote: We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. No link was ever established.

The Times also had published earlier articles stating that Loughner’s attack had no basis in politics, including including a commentary in which the columnist stated that there was:

Quote:no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting.

False statement / evidence of reckless disregard approaching intentional action, and clearly well beyond gross negligence.

Even without a adverse judgement they are going to learn an expensive lesson in rhetoric.

(06-27-2017 07:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually applaud her action to keep an obviously biased editorial board honest.

Isn't that sort of what an editorial board does? Editorialize?

(06-28-2017 01:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually applaud her action to keep an obviously biased editorial board honest.

Isn't that sort of what an editorial board does? Editorialize?

Yes, and obviously biased ones write obviously biased editorials.

(06-28-2017 01:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 01:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually applaud her action to keep an obviously biased editorial board honest.

Isn't that sort of what an editorial board does? Editorialize?

Yes, and obviously biased ones write obviously biased editorials.

You forgot to add that they write "obviously biased editorials littered with non-factual assertions of truth."

I have no issue with the Grey Lady being biased, they have been that way for 35 years or more. And are doing it in a more more glaring fashion.

The difference is that they are being inherently dishonest in this instance. I do have an issue with them biasing the editorial with non-factual assertions of truth to bolster that, as they have seemingly done here.

JAAO, there is a rather distinct real (and legal) difference between presenting an opinion and presenting false facts as narrative for coloring that opinion. C'mon man, you should know that....

(06-28-2017 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 01:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 01:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually applaud her action to keep an obviously biased editorial board honest.

Isn't that sort of what an editorial board does? Editorialize?

Yes, and obviously biased ones write obviously biased editorials.

You forgot to add that they write "obviously biased editorials littered with non-factual assertions of truth."

I have no issue with the Grey Lady being biased, they have been that way for 35 years or more. And are doing it in a more more glaring fashion.

The difference is that they are being inherently dishonest in this instance. I do have an issue with them biasing the editorial with non-factual assertions of truth to bolster that, as they have seemingly done here.

JAAO, there is a rather distinct real (and legal) difference between presenting an opinion and presenting false facts as narrative for coloring that opinion. C'mon man, you should know that....

Yes, of course, I was just amused by the "biased editorial board" phrasing.

Editorial boards are supposed to be biased. That's okay.

Fact reporters aren't. The lines have gotten blurred at virtually every US media source.

Biased editorials based upon correct facts are okay. Biased editorials based upon false or biased facts aren't.

I'm not sure there is enough here for Palin to win a judgement, but I'm not sure that's the objective.

(06-28-2017 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Editorial boards are supposed to be biased. That's okay.

Fact reporters aren't. The lines have gotten blurred at virtually every US media source.

Biased editorials based upon correct facts are okay. Biased editorials based upon false or biased facts aren't.

I'm not sure there is enough here for Palin to win a judgement, but I'm not sure that's the objective.

I will quibble just a tad here. I wouldn't (don't) get upset with biased editorials based upon biased facts. Editorials have always (and presumably should) be free to "cherry-pick" for their argument (i.e. an editorial is an argument stating 'why' something should be one way or another).

Maybe I'm biased, as what I have done for the last 20 years requires the ability to cherry pick out of issues. But, that said, I am not necessarily against an editorial board sounding about an issue using biased (but true) facts.

What I find egregious for *any* media in any form is slipping over to use false or made-up facts.

The hard issue at this juncture for Palin is the actual damages issue. But, that should be no harder than for most successful defamation actions. All in all I find this claim to be colorable. Not saying she will succeed, but this has enough meat on it to make it fairly uncomfortable for Carlos and his Grey Ladies.

(06-28-2017 03:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Editorial boards are supposed to be biased. That's okay.

Fact reporters aren't. The lines have gotten blurred at virtually every US media source.

Biased editorials based upon correct facts are okay. Biased editorials based upon false or biased facts aren't.

I'm not sure there is enough here for Palin to win a judgement, but I'm not sure that's the objective.

I will quibble just a tad here. I wouldn't (don't) get upset with biased editorials based upon biased facts. Editorials have always (and presumably should) be free to "cherry-pick" for their argument (i.e. an editorial is an argument stating 'why' something should be one way or another).

Maybe I'm biased, as what I have done for the last 20 years requires the ability to cherry pick out of issues. But, that said, I am not necessarily against an editorial board sounding about an issue using biased (but true) facts.

What I find egregious for *any* media in any form is slipping over to use false or made-up facts.

The hard issue at this juncture for Palin is the actual damages issue. But, that should be no harder than for most successful defamation actions. All in all I find this claim to be colorable. Not saying she will succeed, but this has enough meat on it to make it fairly uncomfortable for Carlos and his Grey Ladies.

Facts are facts. "Made up facts" are lies.

There can be bias in which which facts are emphasized or ignored. There can be bias in the reading of the meaning of the facts. For example, Sessions speaking with the Russian ambassador at a dinner may be a fact, but reading collusion into it is an interpretation of the fact, as is reading innocence into it. Either interpretation could be the result of bias.

Heh.

Just read that "Sarah Palin has made a bid to become a minority shareholder of the New York Times."

Another great paragraph to share on the Trump/media relationship. To me, this hits it squarely on the head:

Quote: We have a perpetual victim in the White House. And we have an indignant, puffed-up mainstream media which believe themselves victims at the hands of this president. They feed off of one another like tortured lovers in the most unhealthy and doomed of relationships. It is CNN that skillfully baits this man-child into throwing public tantrums on a regular basis, and it is the president that causes a collective ringing of hands and clutching of pearls as the wounded and outraged media works to avoid any self-scrutiny. Mutual hate and self-indulgence, shared need and desperation, torment and despair. Unfortunately, neither entity has our best interest at heart. There isn’t room for any third party in this tortured romance.

(07-02-2017 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Another great paragraph to share on the Trump/media relationship. To me, this hits it squarely on the head:

Quote: We have a perpetual victim in the White House. And we have an indignant, puffed-up mainstream media which believe themselves victims at the hands of this president. They feed off of one another like tortured lovers in the most unhealthy and doomed of relationships. It is CNN that skillfully baits this man-child into throwing public tantrums on a regular basis, and it is the president that causes a collective ringing of hands and clutching of pearls as the wounded and outraged media works to avoid any self-scrutiny. Mutual hate and self-indulgence, shared need and desperation, torment and despair. Unfortunately, neither entity has our best interest at heart. There isn’t room for any third party in this tortured romance.

Reminds me of WW I trench warfare.