Thursday, August 10, 2017

This is so sweet, so very sweet

Via Twitchy:


Anonymous said...

The coverage, including the above court filing link via Twitchy, indicates that the party raising the question is the judge in the case, not the Times. There is no claim of a comically "unreasonable" assumption coming from anyone.

Eric said...

Oh, all right, the JUDGE wants the author of the editorial to appear and explain why he/she didn't read the NY Times.

Hilarity will ensue.

Anonymous said...

Read the link. The judge is specifically addressing the merit of Sarah Palin's argument that the editorial was malicious because it was contradicted by other NY Times material. Look at his language: "...inferences favorable to the plaintiff," "...the circumstances alleged in the Complaint."

Palin's big problem is that the 9-0 Sullivan v. New York Times (1964) already covered this exact ground, and in favor of the press. In that case, the Times had run an advertisement whose content conflicted with information within prior Times news articles. That discrepancy was not enough to demonstrate malice.

Which is why the judge wants to nail down the level of interaction vel non (see the document) between editorial and news. Another problem for Palin: publications frequently maintain a wall of separation between the two departments. Famously so in some cases (e.g. the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal) where a newspaper is known for routinely writing about the same events and information in two very distinct tones.

Anyhow, the judge is reacting directly to Palin's literal complaint, not to an imagined cartoonish "Nobody didn't read nuthin!!!" NYT defense. Analyzing jokes always kills the hilarity... sorry.

If Palin cannot prove both recklessness and foreknowledge, her suit is dead. The judge wants to see whether or not she can.

And there's no need for you to worry about it. The outcome of this case will matter as little as the outcome of the Benghazi hearings. You'll get to invoke it for the next decade even if it's tossed... especially if it's tossed.

Eric said...

The other day the NY Times touted their super-exclusive on a climate change memo: "We gotz the secret memo that Trump is trying to suppress!" until it was revealed that the thing has been out since January. Yet somehow they don't see a problem in the echo chamber and you seem to think bias is something we're imagining. The Palin editorial strikes a chord because everyone outside the bubble knew it was false and now the Times can finally answer for that bias.

Why do you keep bringing up legal arguments? Do you really think Palin is suing to get her hands on $75,000? Dude, we already won: those 45 minutes of cross-examination are going to go down in history. The pretzel logic will come down to: "We feel the need to pontificate on subjects we can't be bothered to read about in our own paper."

Legally the NY Times will win their case, just like OJ.

Anonymous said...

"Dude, we already won. The testimony will be legendary and unforgettable. And liberals live inside a bubble."

Eric said...

Is that you Al Sharpton?

Justice Warren Nothingburger said...

Why do you keep bringing up legal arguments? Do you really think Palin is suing to get her hands on $75,000? ... Legally the NY Times will win their case, just like OJ.

It'll be nice when this "hilarious" nuisance suit ends, so Republicans can go back to their very sincere concerns about tort reform.

Eric said...

"Go back to their very sincere concerns about tort reform?"

Anonymous said...

Dude, you just won again!

Anonymous said...

The Times' editorial re-writer testified that he went rogue.

Or at least that he was under deadline to revise and deliver text, and didn't read the Times' contradictory material.

Both sides must now submit briefs, explaining why the 45 minutes of cross-examination that will go down in history supports their respective claim/denial of "actual malice."

[Palin attorney Ken] Turkel asked if Bennet recalled a 2011 dispute between commentator Andrew Sullivan ― whose “Daily Dish” blog was then published by The Atlantic ― and a Financial Times writer over linking Palin to the Giffords shooting. Bennet, who was The Atlantic’s top editor at the time, said he didn’t recall the matter when he was rewriting the Times editorial. He pointed out that Sullivan “had editorial control of The Daily Dish” and didn’t need to report such matters to him.

Turkel also asked Bennet if he’d recalled, while reworking the editorial, that Palin had endorsed the GOP challenger to his brother, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), in that year’s election. “If I had known that, I didn’t remember it,” the editor said, while adding that he wouldn’t have been surprised that Palin backed the Republican candidate.

Epic, dude. Monumental, red letter cross-examination.