# New York Post Sinks To New Low **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 18, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078 "2013-04-18T22:47:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/41 "2013-04-20T02:46:27Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Yes, even if you alleged the defamatory content is implied, you still have to aver the actual utterance made. And then, because it is not facially defamatory, you have to show the colloquium (that it pertains to the plaintiff) as well as the inducement (the exogenous facts, which together with the verbatim utterance make the statement defamatory) and/or the innuendo (the defamatory impact the not-facially-defamatory statement has in the presence of the inducement). > > So, I’ve made your life easier: I’ve only asked you for the verbatim utterance, and not the further elements of colloquium, inducement, and innuendo. > > I’ll grant that the photos satisfy the colloquium. > > Your inducement/innuendo leaves much to be desired, the term “bag men” pertains to the fact that they are sought because they were seen holding bookbags implicated in the bombing. This wasn’t a protection racket (nor is there any confusion on this point), so you can’t use the slang meaning of “bag man” meaning the one who collects proceeds on behalf of an extorter. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Eh, where an utterance has both plausible permissible and defamatory readings, the First Amendment would require the case for defamation fail. To hold otherwise would mean that any utterance which can be teased to produce a defamatory reading will give rise to legal liability. This is a burden on free speech that plainly is impermissible. > > In other words, you have to show that there is no plausible non-defamatory interpretation of the utterance, in light of the circumstances surrounding its publication. Here, the bookbags that were of the kind implicated in the bombing gave rise to the police interest (as reported by the Post and which is not contended to be an unfactual statement) and gave rise to the headline. Without more, there’s not a showing that the Post fingered them as the bomber, particularly because the headline has to be read together with the article, where the nature of police interest is set forth more fully. BOOM. You bitches just got lawyered. And shit. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/42 "2013-04-20T03:01:35Z")
And condoms don’t help any when you’re being lawyered. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/43 "2013-04-20T05:52:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that the article dispels some of the inferences you make above? Or do you believe that reading the article and viewing the picture leaves a reasonable person no plausible inference except that the men pictured were the guilty bombers? This is a legal inquiry, as opposed to a request for your opinion (which you’re welcome to give anyway). If the headline and photo are sufficiently defamatory and damaging, and the article is inside the magazine and tabloid, is the article’s content relevant? In other words, is it possible that a nonpornographic front page (headline included) could be so over the line that no article can outweigh it? The preceding does not apply to online content. And I understand that there was a little fine print on the front page of the edition in question. My opinions: For completeness, libel law if very tough in the US, so I’m not claiming that anybody has a case against the NY Post. Generally speaking I prefer US libel law over that of Britain’s. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/44 "2013-04-20T09:31:31Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Cite? > > I mean, what makes this a lower low than their previous lows? Wow, I bet the Post’s lawyers will be all over you with examples of even worse lows. It’s like when that Waffle House was sued for discrimination for serving a group of Black customers grits with flies in them, and their defense boiled down to “A lot of our grits got flies, and you can’t prove they don’t.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/45 "2013-04-20T16:16:18Z")
[This may be fabricated](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348436), but what the hell. > [@](#): > > Czech Ambassador Petr Gandalovič released the following statement: “…The Czech Republic and Chechnya are two very different entities - the Czech Republic is a Central European country; Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.” > > RFERL reported that a Czech media site noted “Chechnya is a suburb of Czechoslovakia” appeared on the website of the “New York Post.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/46 "2013-04-20T16:59:33Z")
The Czech is in the e-mail… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/47 "2013-04-20T17:24:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [This may be fabricated](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348436), but what the hell. So, in a thread dedicated to criticizing the Post for recklessly publishing information without first ascertaining whether it is true, you’ve decided to post a criticism that you freely admit may be entirely made up? I’m having trouble figuring what it is you actually object to, as it clearly is not undue haste in going to press. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/48 "2013-04-20T18:22:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The Czech is in the e-mail… Unless he’s a midget, seeking a place to hide. Asking if anyone could cache a small Czech. Hey! He started it! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/49 "2013-04-20T18:23:52Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So, in a thread dedicated to criticizing the Post for recklessly publishing information without first ascertaining whether it is true, you’ve decided to post a criticism that you freely admit may be entirely made up? > > I’m having trouble figuring what it is you actually object to, as it clearly is not undue haste in going to press. Perhaps you will point out where in the Post story it says anything like “Hey, this could be made up, but what the heck…”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/50 "2013-04-20T20:20:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that the article dispels some of the inferences you make above? Or do you believe that reading the article and viewing the picture leaves a reasonable person no plausible inference except that the men pictured were the guilty bombers? The cover unambiguously suggested Zaimi and Barhoun were the bombers. It called them “Bag Men,” referring to the men who left bombs inside backpacks. It showed Barhoun with a black backpack, which we knew by then was similar to the one used in the bombing. The caption said the FBI was looking for them in connection to the bombing, which again implies they were suspected even if the Post did not use that word. I fail to see what the Post did to confirm what they were implying, and it goes without saying that they were completely wrong, as they have been at almost every turn on this story. The Post’s story even acknowledged that the FBI had video and names of suspects and that it wasn’t clear that the picture they splashed on their cover included the same people. There were at least a few “revenge attacks” on Arabs after the bombing and at least one person was severely beaten for having the wrong face at the wrong time. In that light I think Zaimi and Barhoun were lucky they weren’t killed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/51 "2013-04-20T20:22:28Z")
I recall one televised interview, where it seemed the interviewee was decidedly Hispanic in appearance and speech. Mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/52 "2013-04-20T21:06:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The cover unambiguously suggested Zaimi and Barhoun were the bombers. It called them “Bag Men,” referring to the men who left bombs inside backpacks. It showed Barhoun with a black backpack, which we knew by then was similar to the one used in the bombing. The caption said the FBI was looking for them in connection to the bombing, which again implies they were suspected even if the Post did not use that word. I fail to see what the Post did to confirm what they were implying, and it goes without saying that they were completely wrong, as they have been at almost every turn on this story. The Post’s story even acknowledged that the FBI had video and names of suspects and that it wasn’t clear that the picture they splashed on their cover included the same people. There were at least a few “revenge attacks” on Arabs after the bombing and at least one person was severely beaten for having the wrong face at the wrong time. In that light I think Zaimi and Barhoun were lucky they weren’t killed. I meant to add that the FBI does appear to have been looking for information about these two at one time. But they were two people being sought among many, and I see no editorial reason to select a photo of Barhoun and Zaimi were instead of other suspects. ‘We had a good picture of them’ isn’t a sufficient reason for that editorial decision. There was no evidence Barhoun and Zaimi were more likely suspects than any others, and putting them on the cover made it look like these were the bombers or at least the chief suspects, not two people among many that the FBI wanted to talk to. It sounds like the Post more or less went to the Reddit subforum and picked the picture they thought would make the best cover. There was no information solid enough to justify picking those two as the “Bag Men.” It’s really an incomprehensible choice. I think the Post probably recognized they were being a little hasty but figured they wouldn’t have to explain because these were the bombers. And they fucked up yet again, just like they did with so many other elements of the story. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/53 "2013-04-20T21:19:36Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > That’s because so many of the critics don’t actually do any reporting of their own, such as aggregators like HuffPo or Gawker or self-appointed media critics like Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow. I understand that “self-appointed” is intended as pejorative, but I’m not sure why. By whom would you like them to be appointed? Presumably if their respective (though probably overlapping) audiences grow tired of what you seem to be trying to portray as their antics, they will lose their platform. Until then, I’m unclear why you seem to think their opinoins ought to carry less weight. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/54 "2013-04-20T21:44:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I meant to add that the FBI does appear to have been looking for information about these two at one time. But they were two people being sought among many, and I see no editorial reason to select a photo of Barhoun and Zaimi were instead of other suspects. And here you go astray. You acknowledge the information printed, both standing alone and in context, was materially true. Courts are not going to impose liability because different editors may have made different decisions about what photo should appear on the cover. Summary judgment for the Post. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/55 "2013-04-21T04:47:35Z")
AnimalNY: “Roundup of the NY Post’s front page lies”: [The New York Post Continues Its Proud Tradition of Publishing Front Page Lies – ANIMAL](http://animalnewyork.com/2013/the-new-york-post-continues-its-proud-tradition-of-publishing-front-page-lies/) Link from gawker. “The Apology the NY Post should have issued”: [The Apology the New York Post Should Have Issued – ANIMAL](http://animalnewyork.com/2013/the-apology-the-new-york-post-should-have-issued/) Old news: “The Post’s ‘Person of Interest’ Is a Local High-School Track Runner” [http://gawker.com/5994955/the-posts-person-of-interest-is-a-local-high+school-track-runner?tag=new-york-post](http://gawker.com/5994955/the-posts-person-of-interest-is-a-local-high+school-track-runner?tag=new-york-post) “The Vanishing Bomb Suspect: How the New York Post Scooped Reality” [The Vanishing Bomb Suspect: How the \New York Post\ Scooped Reality](http://gawker.com/5994810/the-vanishing-bomb-suspect-how-the-new-york-post-scooped-reality?tag=new-york-post) How did an out-of-town tabloid beat the national media to major scoops in a chaotic, breaking story? By not worrying too much about whether the scoops were true. First, the death toll. … ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/56 "2013-04-21T09:01:24Z")
Why obviously no less than the king himself should appoint his own fool! And if he upsets him or displeases him in any way, off with his head! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/57 "2013-04-21T10:15:11Z")
The _New York Post_ is owned by the same company that owns the _Wall Street Journal_. What a sad commentary on American media. > [@Bricker](#): > > Or do you believe that reading the article and viewing the picture leaves a reasonable person no plausible inference except that the men pictured were the guilty bombers? I assume plaintiff’s counsel will enter evidence showing that many _Post_ readers are semi-literate and just look at the pictures. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/58 "2013-04-21T16:50:39Z")
Lawyer chum is being poured into the water, soon they will be gathering to feed on the bounty of billable hours. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/59 "2013-04-21T19:14:48Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > What part of the Post’s story do you contend is untrue? Cite the offending utterances verbatim, as you would have to in a complaint for defamation. As far as I remember, Richard Jewell was never awarded damages in a single civil suit, but he certainly got paid due to settlements. I certainly don’t see any reason these two shouldn’t go the same route. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/60 "2013-04-21T20:57:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I meant to add that the FBI does appear to have been looking for information about these two at one time. But they were two people being sought among many, and I see no editorial reason to select a photo of Barhoun and Zaimi were instead of other suspects. ‘We had a good picture of them’ isn’t a sufficient reason for that editorial decision. There was no evidence Barhoun and Zaimi were more likely suspects than any others, and putting them on the cover made it look like these were the bombers or at least the chief suspects, not two people among many that the FBI wanted to talk to. It sounds like the Post more or less went to the Reddit subforum and picked the picture they thought would make the best cover. There was no information solid enough to justify picking those two as the “Bag Men.” It’s really an incomprehensible choice. I think the Post probably recognized they were being a little hasty but figured they wouldn’t have to explain because these were the bombers. And they fucked up yet again, just like they did with so many other elements of the story. They were Bag Men because they had bags. I see no reason that your editorial judgement should be some sort of objective standard that the Post’s failure to follow constitutes libel. Truth is a defense. The FBI was looking for the two people the Post identified. The Post post published their pictures and truthfully reported this fact. That’s not even a slim ground upon which to rest a defamation claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078.md?page=4)