BOOM. You bitches just got lawyered. And shit.
And condoms don’t help any when you’re being lawyered.
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.
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.”
This may be fabricated, but what the hell.
The Czech is in the e-mail…
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.
Unless he’s a midget, seeking a place to hide. Asking if anyone could cache a small Czech.
Hey! He started it!
Perhaps you will point out where in the Post story it says anything like “Hey, this could be made up, but what the heck…”.
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 recall one televised interview, where it seemed the interviewee was decidedly Hispanic in appearance and speech. Mistaken?
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.
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.
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.
AnimalNY: “Roundup of the NY Post’s front page lies”: The New York Post Continues Its Proud Tradition of Publishing Front Page Lies – ANIMAL
Link from gawker.
“The Apology the NY Post should have issued”: The Apology the New York Post Should Have Issued – ANIMAL
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
“The Vanishing Bomb Suspect: How the New York Post Scooped Reality” The Vanishing Bomb Suspect: How the <em>New York Post</em> Scooped Reality
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. …
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!
The New York Post is owned by the same company that owns the Wall Street Journal. What a sad commentary on American media.
I assume plaintiff’s counsel will enter evidence showing that many Post readers are semi-literate and just look at the pictures.
Lawyer chum is being poured into the water, soon they will be gathering to feed on the bounty of billable hours.
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.
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.