# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/101 "2013-04-25T13:27:55Z")
Rupert Murdoch has owned the New York Post for 37 years. It has been operating at a loss for that entire period. It’s not a newspaper, it’s a propaganda tool. It’s not journalism, it’s some rich fools blog. I’m not sure libel is possible. Wouldn’t there need to be a general expectation that the Post was an actual news source? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/102 "2013-04-25T13:40:31Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > I’m not sure libel is possible. Wouldn’t there need to be a general expectation that the Post was an actual news source? No. Anybody can be sued for libel/slander, including a guy running a blog. It has nothing to do with whether or not the publisher/speaker is considered a news source. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/103 "2013-04-25T13:55:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No. Anybody can be sued for libel/slander, including a guy running a blog. It has nothing to do with whether or not the publisher/speaker is considered a news source. Yeah, I know. That was meant tongue-in-cheek. I hope those two are awarded billions in damages. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/104 "2013-04-26T03:17:13Z")
Just because you read it in the NY Post doesn’t necessarily mean it was not true. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/105 "2013-04-26T03:25:02Z")
Well, what is the truth, isn’t it a bit like that Japanese movie _Rush A Moon_? Besides, they clearly say that those weren’t the guys, so anybody who read the article and looked at the picture, if they see those two guys, they say “Hey! Those are the two guys who didn’t do it!”. And then turn their suspicions elsewhere. Helped 'em out, New York style. ---
**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 26, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/106 "2013-04-26T03:43:24Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > I’m not sure libel is possible. Wouldn’t there need to be a general expectation that the Post was an actual news source? I understand that’s an actual issue when setting damages. If it can be shown that nobody takes the source seriously, damages are lower than if the source was reputable. IANAL. The New York Post has an online presence though, and folks outside of the City aren’t always aware of their unreliability. For example, in 2011 Dominique Strauss-Kahn allegedly sexually assaulted a hotel maid. The New York Post reported (maliciously, IMO) that she was a hotel prostitute and many posters here believed them. Those who said, “NY Post: are you kidding?” were dismissed. Naturally the Post’s story fell apart and they were sued for libel. They settled the matter out of court after dragging the case out for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/107 "2013-04-26T10:16:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > In other news [Reddit apologizes to the world for their shoddy reporting](http://gawker.com/reddit-apologizes-for-leading-boston-bomber-witch-hunt-477141847): > [INDENT]…though started with noble intentions, some of the activity on reddit fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties. The reddit staff and the millions of people on reddit around the world deeply regret that this happened. We have apologized privately to the family of missing college student Sunil Triphathi, as have various users and moderators. Update: [Sunil Tripathi’s body was pulled from the water on Tuesday](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/04/25/boston-bombing-social-media-student-brown-university-reddit/2112309/). Cause of death as yet undetermined. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/108 "2013-04-26T14:10:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve been down this road too many times to count. Let me save you some trouble: after you have patiently explained the specific requirements of the law, and explained how the facts adduced do not reach the bar required, you will contemptuously be told that the poster didn’t actually mean there would be a lawsuit and wasn’t actually talking about libel suits in the “legal” meaning, but was simply speaking in a casual reference to false impressions, and colloquially used “libel” and “sue” as impressions and descriptive words with no actual, factual meaning. And you will be an asshole for daring to assume that “Hope the post has a nice big libel warchest, because they’re going to get cleaned out,” meant an actual lawsuit with actual monetary damages. Well, yes. When you act like a smarmy asshole who can’t parse basic English, you get treated like that. If Kimmy had just said “In my professional opinion, there is no case for libel. Here’s why […]” he would have been treated fine. But he decided to act like a know-it-all prick and ask non-lawyers to defend a legal case. He posted, like you do, with the goal of making himself look good and not, as you claim, fighting ignorance. If he’d wanted to fight ignorance, he’d have given us the information first. So, yeah, people are going to take the most unfavorable interpretation. That’s how people work. You’ve given them a reason to be biased against you, and they will take it. If there’s any possible way you could be wrong, they will find it. The funny thing is, that’s something trial lawyers do all the time. Yet all you can do about it here is whine about it. You’re a lawyer, you are professionally trained in arguing tactics. Yet you constantly lose these arguments. ---
**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 26, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/109 "2013-04-26T18:52:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, yes. When you act like a smarmy asshole who can’t parse basic English, you get treated like that. > > If Kimmy had just said “In my professional opinion, there is no case for libel. Here’s why […]” he would have been treated fine. But he decided to act like a know-it-all prick and ask non-lawyers to defend a legal case. He posted, like you do, with the goal of making himself look good and not, as you claim, fighting ignorance. If he’d wanted to fight ignorance, he’d have given us the information first. > > So, yeah, people are going to take the most unfavorable interpretation. That’s how people work. You’ve given them a reason to be biased against you, and they will take it. If there’s any possible way you could be wrong, they will find it. > > The funny thing is, that’s something trial lawyers do all the time. Yet all you can do about it here is whine about it. You’re a lawyer, you are professionally trained in arguing tactics. Yet you constantly lose these arguments. Well, I’ll make you a deal … If non-lawyers refrain from rendering legal opinions, such as, “Hope the Post has a big war chest, 'cause they’re about to be cleaned out for libel,” then the lawyers will refrain from testing non-lawyer legal analyses (because those non-lawyers will not be engaging in any such analyses). Otherwise, no dice. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/110 "2013-04-26T18:58:41Z")
Oh, OK. So this case is such an obvious loser, potential plaintiffs won’t be able to find a lawyer to take their side? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/111 "2013-04-26T19:05:33Z")
**BigT** is right, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/112 "2013-04-26T19:22:10Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > legal opinions, such as, “Hope the Post has a big war chest, 'cause they’re about to be cleaned out for libel,” That’s a prediction about a \*settlement \*of a suit or threatened suit, which is an event that’s related far more to human nature and financial prudence than to the letter of libel law. IOW it isn’t really a legal opinion in the sense you know it _at all_, now is it? Yes, \*\*BigT \*\*is right about this combination of ego problem and bubble problem you share with your senior colleague **Bricker** , and occasionally others of your brethren. ---
**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 26, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/113 "2013-04-26T19:55:51Z")
How strange it is that, on a board ostensibly given over to fighting ignorance, one so often hears the complaint: It’s NOT FAIR that some people know more about some subjects than I do!! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/114 "2013-04-26T19:56:55Z")
The complaint is that some people are dicks. ---
**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 26, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/115 "2013-04-26T20:12:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The complaint is that some people are dicks. Well, that sounds like a thoughtful critique. I will be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/116 "2013-04-26T20:22:20Z")
Darn, I thought we were on the verge of a breakthrough. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/117 "2013-04-27T00:51:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **BigT** is right, by the way. Mind if I use this for my sig? 😛 ---
**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 27, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/118 "2013-04-27T03:48:47Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Well, I’ll make you a deal … If non-lawyers refrain from rendering legal opinions, such as, “Hope the Post has a big war chest, 'cause they’re about to be cleaned out for libel,” then the lawyers will refrain from testing non-lawyer legal analyses (because those non-lawyers will not be engaging in any such analyses). > > Otherwise, no dice. You’re out of order! Kidding, obviously. But you seem to be missing the point Kimmy, which surprises me. I thought lawyers had a better grasp of rhetoric. Here’s an example. Newbie casual debaters think that the best way to debate is never to give an inch and argue against every point their opponent makes. But that opens them up to appearing ridiculous. And some of the most sophisticated techniques use verbal Judo. You _concede_ one of their main points… then show that it really doesn’t matter. Or if you’re a liberal, you buttress your case with conservative websites (Reagan raised taxes!) and visa versa (Obama assassinates with drones!). Many Judo techniques, all with enhanced effectiveness. In this instance you could have applied a soft sell approach. It would have made you look better, more professional, more knowledgeable. Just add a tad of empathy: “You might think that the NY Post would be cleaned out, but actually libel cases are pretty hard to win in the US. In legal terms they have these 3 hurdles: A, B and C. Now A, I might grant you for the sake of argument. But B and C will be pretty tough. Here’s why…” “Now sure you might think they _should_ be cleaned out -personally I agree with the ACLU- but that’s a different matter.” ## Note too that the soft sell strategy has the added advantage of fighting ignorance more effectively. Whether BigT’s claim was correct is a separate matter. This is the pit after all. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/119 "2013-04-27T04:02:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Well, that sounds like a thoughtful critique. I will be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves. Frankly,\*\* Marley’s\*\* comment is a more thoughtful critique than you deserve. I would’ve just said you’re an arrogant piece of shit. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078/120 "2013-04-27T17:46:42Z")
So how does something [like this play into it?](http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/true-statements-can-be-defamatory-implication) > [@](#): > > True statements can be defamatory by implication > The state high court ruled last week that plaintiffs can sue for defamation by implication under Iowa law, even if the statements are true. > March 12, 2007 · Private- and public-figure plaintiffs in Iowa can now sue for “defamation by implication” even if all if the statements in question are true, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday. > The court said that if a true fact is not properly or thoroughly explained, it can become defamatory if, read a certain way, it carries false implications. Is there no grey area here that is arguable? Can’t something be factual but still be “defamatory” when taken in context? There also appears to be a case called Mihalik vs Duprey where the court told the jury that truthful statements can be considered defamatory when taken in context, but IANAL and have no access to the actual case, and that may have not held up in higher courts. Just spit-balling it. It just seems that in law, there’s always gray areas, and is it really that clear that this is not one of them? It does, however, seem to be an uphill battle with the wide berth first amendment rights are (rightfully, IMHO) given here in the US. ETA: Put it this way, in my uninformed layman’s opinion, I can’t see the NY Post getting nailed for this. But is the law really that clear? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-sinks-to-new-low/656078.md?page=7)