Comments on: Vicki Iseman drops $27 million defamation suit against the NYT; Update: Iseman’s lawyer declares victory

By: DSchoen

DSchoen — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:38:12 +0000

RedSoxNation ”Under most state laws concerning defamation, truth is generally an absolute defense to defamation charges. So, in many cases, when someone makes a statement that is truthful, even if it appears to imply something else, it is not actionable.” Does that include anonymous, unknown sources backed up by other unnamed, unidentified sources? In other words could a newspaper slander, defame, make absolutely false statements so long as they “claim” this info came from unidentified anonymous unknown unnamed secret mysterious undisclosed shadowy vague anonymous source or sources? (Yes, that is Thesaurus abuse) > Is there a there a “magic” number of anonymous source or sources that “suddenly” becomes “credible? Are you aware that ALL sources for this “sexual affair” were anonymous source or sources? Are you aware that ALL named sources for this “sexual affair” denied there was any “sexual affair” It seems that the NYT defense in this is “If you read the article and interpreted to mean a “sexual affair”, then you, the reader, are an idiot. Now that would be truthful.

By: RedSoxNation

RedSoxNation — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:31:55 +0000

If I had to guess, I would assume that the Iseman lawsuit fell apart because she could only show defamation by implication, which is not recognized by most states.
Under most state laws concerning defamation, truth is generally an absolute defense to defamation charges. So, in many cases, when someone makes a statement that is truthful, even if it appears to imply something else, it is not actionable. But there is one exception to this general rule. You can have defamation by innuendo. Under this legal theory, a person can show that a person is making a defamatory statement by referencing a fact known to the “publishee” (i.e. the person who heard the defamatory remark). For instance, if someone states to a person in front of other people (i.e. the “publishees”), “You are just like the guy in that letter”, and everyone knows that the letter is about a rapist, you can establish by innuendo that the statement “You are just like the guy in that letter” means you are a rapist. So, under an innuendo theory, you have to show that the defamer referenced a particular fact that is known to the publishee that defines what might appear to be a benign statement.
But courts are very reluctant to allow defamation by “implication” where a party can establish defamation based on what the words could imply. In contrast to the innuendo cases, there is no underlying fact that you can prove to give the defamatory statement its true meaning; that is to say, there is no letter you can put into evidence to show that everyone knew exactly what was meant by “You are just like the guy in that letter.” Think of it this way: how many statements do you think that Rev. Al Sharpton could infer by implication a racist meaning that many others would never think to see a racist meaning. The same thing would happen for defamation where people could easily maintain a lawsuit based on what could be implied by a statement. Thus, if you allow defamation by implication, you could open the flood gates for defamation cases in a society that does not want to overly burden anyone’s right to free speech.
To illustrate this difference, one legal commentator has noted that while the words innuendo and implication have similar meanings for normal English usage, they have very different meanings in the world of defamation. And I think Ms. Iseman found that out the hard way. Given this basic framework, it appears to me that Iseman’s legal theory may have fallen apart when it became evident that she could only support a claim of defamation by implication. And that is not, I would guess, a legally recognized defamation theory in New York.
I hope this helps….

By: Mark30339

Mark30339 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:09:29 +0000
She should have asked G. Gordon Liddy to put his legal bulldogs on the case. John Gibson might want to consult the G Man on responding to Huffpo's fraud on him.

By: Pythagoras

Pythagoras — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:11:08 +0000

NYT stock rallied today on the news of their victory and closed down $0.20 (5.39%) to $3.51

18 more days like this and it’ll hit zero.

NYT stock ended 2008 at $7.33

They’ve suspended their dividend. Next they’ll suspend printing the paper.

By: Jules Crittenden » All The News That’s Fit To Infer

Jules Crittenden » All The News That’s Fit To Infer — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:41:45 +0000

[...] Hot Air sees it as “no settlement, no apology, nothing.” I dunno. They were compelled to make a statement that is on its face absurd and laughable. [...]

By: DSchoen

DSchoen — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:56:12 +0000
“Vicki Iseman drops $27 million defamation suit against the NYT” Even if she won, how would she collect? NYT stock is worth about two packs of gum! NYT can not pay their stock holders I think by this time next week NYT stock won’t be worth one packs of gum!

By: r keller

r keller — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:46:24 +0000

The blurring of the line between reporting and story-telling is well stated:

The story stands as a powerful examination of a presidential candidate who cast himself as an ethics reformer and scourge of special interests, yet seemed blind at times over the course of his career to appearances of conflicts of interest.

I.e, a story, a narrative, a fiction….but, of course:

the article did not state or intend to conclude that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic relationship with Mr. McCain

So in the manner of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and Dan Rather, the NYT weaves real persons into its dramaturgy of the left.

Protected by the libel laws they can do this without worry.

But then, this is a minor work of fiction in the broad history of the NYT.

By: jim m

jim m — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:39:38 +0000

Not to say that “I told you so”…..but I did.

She wasn’t going to win the defamation claim.

By: ScottMcC

ScottMcC — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:14:07 +0000
When the lawyers declared not winning the case a victory and then got Pwned with a "We paid no money. We did not apologize. We did not retract one word of the story" cherry on top, it kinda reminded me of McCain's whole presidential campaign strategy.

By: Techie

Techie — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:12:35 +0000

Libel is dead letter in this nation anyway.

By: terryannonline

terryannonline — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:07:53 +0000

In all fairness, you don’t have to see the Oscars this Sunday, either…

Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM

I won’t watch the Oscars. I usually tune first five minutes and think to myself, “Why in the world am I watching this boring thing” and then change the channel.

By: Snowed In

Snowed In — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:02:22 +0000

terryannonline on February 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM

In all fairness, you don’t have to see the Oscars this Sunday, either…

By: juanito

juanito — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:00:52 +0000

Pathetic.

By: Entelechy

Entelechy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:59:19 +0000

Score one for the Times.

getalife on February 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Logic and broken records are indignant.

p.s. if getalife is still a baby, with a not fully developed brain, I apologize.

By: terryannonline

terryannonline — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:57:21 +0000

By the way, who are more self-congratulatory, journalists or actors?

Jim Treacher on February 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Answer: Actors because they throw so many boring award ceremonies. At least, we don’t have to see Maureen Dowd in a dress thanking Obama in an award ceremony on prime time television!

By: michaelo

michaelo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:51:09 +0000

NYT stock is now below the cost of the Sunday edition of the paper; not worth taking note of anything they do.

By: sannhet

sannhet — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:44:35 +0000

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times Co. said Thursday its board has decided to suspend the newspaper ~~publisher’s quarterly dividend in a move to preserve cash as advertising spending continues to decline amid the recession.~~

… one can dream of the day.

By: The Race Card

The Race Card — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:43:16 +0000

By the way, who are more self-congratulatory, journalists or actors?

Jim Treacher on February 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM

The only thing more sanctimonious than either is an actor playing a journalist.

It’s a bit of a adulatory circle jerk. Without the lauded roles of actors playing journalists, journalists would still be glorified skip tracers…in their own mind.

I actually believe journalism is a very important profession. I also think that without the glory bestowed upon journalists by Hollywood, many would recognize their impending irrelevance in todays digital information shitstorm.

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:42:43 +0000

All the Fits We Throw As News

By: Vicki Iseman drops $27 million defamation suit against the NYT; Update: Iseman’s lawyer declares victory — But As For Me

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:40:13 +0000

[...] No settlement, no apology, nothing. [...] Read the rest » [...]

By: Esthier

Esthier — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:36:30 +0000

Is it really that far out of the realm of possibility that he likes flirting with women who aren’t his wife? I don’t even think he had sex with her, but McCain definitely seems like the kind of guy that likes pretty women fawning over him.

Speedwagon82 on February 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Of course it’s not far fetched, but that doesn’t make it news, only gossip. I don’t like McCain, but that doesn’t mean I have to support crap the NY Times prints.

By the way, who are more self-congratulatory, journalists or actors?

Jim Treacher on February 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Journalists by far, always making themselves the story.

By: Snowed In

Snowed In — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:33:15 +0000

By the way, who are more self-congratulatory, journalists or actors?

I’m gonna go off the board, Jack, and take the current administration for $50.

By: Snowed In

Snowed In — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:31:39 +0000

I don’t get how admitting you ran gossip as news is some sort of vindication.

Jim Treacher on February 19, 2009 at 5:27 PM

NYT: Hooray, we’re as useful as Carl Cameron!

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:27:59 +0000

By the way, who are more self-congratulatory, journalists or actors?

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:27:04 +0000

“The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I don’t get how admitting you ran gossip as news is some sort of vindication.