Although it seems correct as a matter of law, the decision should not be interpreted as a vindication of the Times. To the contrary, the details described in U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's ruling highlight the journalistic malpractice, magical thinking, and blinkered tribalism that led to this stupid and embarrassing mistake.As far as I can tell, the judge's ruling was that because the Times said "oopsie!" relatively quickly, there wasn't actual malice. One can't help to wonder if the subject of attack had been a non-Republican, the editorial staff would have taken an extra 30 seconds to consult Google.
Related - The Newseum is going under. Good.
6 comments:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/59/58/7b5958be13b51072b765bee16cafb5b2.jpg
Intelligent people know how to link to stuff. Just sayin'...
Mr. Viking Pundit himself does it the exact same way in comments. From the past three weeks alone:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4053585&postID=8554069996749051443&bpli=1
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4053585&postID=8542446539967216757&bpli=1
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4053585&postID=4629099558532874776&bpli=1
Just sayin' (that your insults need improvin')...
Why did the NY Times sacrifice journalistic integrity for false equivalence and a cheap shot at a Republican?
https://carazara.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/frog-and-scorpion.jpg
The structure and moral of that story has nothing to do the NY Times in general, nor Palin's failed lawsuit in particular.
What you want is a fable in which a frog regularly denounces a scorpion, except whenever the scorpion publishes something the frog agrees with, which causes the frog to cite the scorpion's work.
Maybe the frog cites the scorpion because it's the only source the weasel will accept.
Post a Comment