KPRC television broadcast from 6:00pm Wed., 4/17, probably about the same time The Post was going to print.
They later claimed to have shown the picture of the Russian brothers the night before, but that’s clearly untrue.
Here’s a question for the lawyers - is libel law clear enough that the Post could get a summary judgement?
Because while I agree that they can probably mount a technical defense along the lines Bricker and Kimmy are suggesting (and I have no problem with that, it’s part of what lawyers are for) - I don’t know if they could convince a jury. Especially since this would be a civil trial(?), and it would be preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, and I would be interested to see if you know a case that’s similar to this that could shed some light. My basic argument is that the truth defense (the fact that the FBI did want to question the two men) doesn’t apply here because the Post cover bluntly suggested several things that were false.
My understanding of the US law on this point is a bit hazy. I know that publication of a news story on a matter of “public concern” about a “public figure” must be made with malice to be actionable.
From my limited reading, it seems that an otherwise-defamatory statement made in a story of “public concern” about a “private figure” would not necessarily require actual malice to be actionable.
… but if the standard is lower than “actual malice”, you only get actual damages.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. - Wikipedia.
Assuming this is good law, and represents the law in NY:
-
In this case, I assume that the statements have a false innuendo (that the pictured guys are the bombers) and so would be actionable.
-
The matter is clearly a “matter of public interest”.
-
These guys are not “public figures” as they have in no way volunteered to be in the public limelight.
-
Therefore, they need not prove that the Post acted with malice towards them. Proving “actual malice” would be very difficult!
-
However, all they could recover is “actual damages” if they don’t prove actual malice.
-
Their “actual damages” are going to be very low, as the fact of their innocence was proven beyond any doubt with the utmost publicity very quickly.
That joke bombed.
Disagree. That misleadingly suggests that the 2 characters were the main suspects - that was not remotely the case. There were dozens of photographs circulated among law enforcement and let’s not forget that the Post lifted the pic off of Reddit in all likelihood. Indeed, the bags of the people shown were of the wrong color.
I’m not saying that the NY Post undermined the search for the 2 killers -the real ones- by basing their editorial decisions on the race of the people that they would slather on the front page, though the evidence suggests that. We don’t know whether this is the case. It would be irresponsible to speculate. So I’m not.
I can use misdirection too
We’re way beyond the point where the Post’s prospective sea of red ink can be carted out in wheel barrels: it will take a fleet of dump trucks. The NY Post will not survive the next 10 years without dipping into bankruptcy or overturning their business and ethical model. Agreed?
Malthus - More generally the US in general and New York in particular has very press-friendly libel laws. Victories are pretty rare and tabloids have solid lawyers. The Post has been pulling this nonsense for over 35 years now-- they probably have the legal front under control.
I doubt that. The “Bag Men” story was published Thursday and it says the FBI was looking at video of the suspects. That was the video that they made public Thursday afternoon, which means that the FBI knew who it was looking for by the time the story went to press.
And the Post’s story said: “It was not immediately clear if the men in the law-enforcement photos are the same men in the surveillance videos.”
Yes, I quoted that - twice, I think. I don’t see it on the cover. In fact that cover implies the opposite.
So, if I produce a tabloid with a picture of Bricker and a clear implication of unseemly behavior with goats, but then in the body of text say “Nah, just kidding!”, then that doesn’t count?
While BPD was falling over itself to deny the story, the FBI was indeed inquiring of a Saudi person of interest who had been at the scene of the bombing (just as the NYP had reported – to the effect of “law enforcement is questioning a Saudi national …”). BPD’s denial of the account was fairly technical (something like, “we [BPD] have no one were questioning”), which suggests to me that BPD was engaged in a little willful misdirection (likely to prevent speculation that they believed could get out of hand).
So, the Post was right and those who waited for official channels were themselves a little bit misled by a little white lie/technicality.
I haven’t followed this tangent, but “official channels” and good sourcing are not the same thing. The Post was indeed essentially correct about the guy being questioned, but it had no significance at all and wound up only being used by people who were speculating or trying to taunt liberals on the internet. If they’d waited they would not have lost anything. Meanwhile I think they stuck with their flagrantly wrong death toll for about 48 hours.
Why would it taunt liberals? Is there some sort of groundswell of support for Al Qaeda among liberals that I am not aware of?
If any taunting was going, my dear Marley, it was liberals who were pretty sure that this was domestic right-wing terrorism because it was Tax Day (even as it was pointed out that those protesting taxation strike a government, not civilian, targets) and because it was in Boston and you know what else happened in Boston … the TEA PARTY.
This was the entirety of their evidence. I think you’ll agree an actual person of interest found at the scene of the crime is a quantity of evidence a good deal more than that marshaled by those arguing it was homegrown right-wingers.
By the way, of the two main conjectures (U.S. right-wingers vs. Al Qaeda and its affiliates/successors), who do you think ended up being closer to the mark?
In the right context, suddenly the Post doesn’t look so bad. This piece in Esquire just happens to be the right context.
Woe is to you Mr Writer. You got stupid drunk, had a one-night stand, couldn’t get home so you write an article about how you get a little more nookie, have to suffer the horrendous embarrassment of a “small-scale walk of shame” (lest we forget about what she’s going to get from her roommate later) go out for necessities (Dunkin’ Donuts!) even though you’re not supposed to open the door, let alone go out, & still, heroically manage to get an article in on deadline. The only thing it was missing was Tommy Flanagan’s, “Yeah! That’s the ticket!” :rolleyes:
Seriously? It’s a little unclear. The libs were saying “It’s domestic.” That this is Chechnya terrorism doesn’t quite fit. The best hypothesis I’ve heard is that this a dyad murder, conducted by 2 dudes, comparable in some ways to Columbine. But that’s speculation. We really should wait for the facts to get out. (But yes, there was a Jihadist aspect.) Tsarnaevs and Columbine: Were Dzhokhar and Tamerlan like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris?
I’m not sure why you’re defending the reporting of the NY Post. New Yorkers know that anybody who takes the paper seriously is a moron. Its credibility is literally placed between that of the National Enquirer (who has less trouble with the law actually) and the Weekly World News. So we’re not talking Bat Boy level, but a couple of notches above that. Most of their leverage came via their amusing headlines which admittedly “Everyone” in Manhattan would see and typically chuckle at. The reason why I’m having fun with them is this situation isn’t clear to people outside of the Tri-state area: in the internet age, The New York Post’s shoddy reporting can do lasting harm. Luckily that economically nonviable institution is unlikely to survive long, though they have been granted a large cash cushion to help during the spin-off.
12 dead? Really? And the basis of that was???
In other news Reddit apologizes to the world for their shoddy reporting:
…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. We want to take this opportunity to apologize publicly for the pain they have had to endure. We hope that this painful event will be channeled into something positive and the increased awareness will lead to Sunil’s quick and safe return home. We encourage everyone to join and show your support to the Triphathi family and their search. That’s the sort of thing you say when you have something a few cuts above a reckless disregard for the truth.
I’ll also note that NPR did a fine job on this story – emphasizing uncertainty where it existed. TPM wasn’t bad either, though it wasn’t as polished.
Sadly, the Weekly World News is no more. And I miss Bat Boy… The WWN was The Onion before it came into the scene.
When it was revealed that Bat Boy was a Scientologist, it took a lot of the fun out of it.
It? Not I? IT posted this?
You sound like the Post. ‘I jumped to conclusions based on shaky information, but they were plausible conclusions!’ The guy was questioned for being an Arab in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bombers weren’t Arabs, so the whole thing was an unlucky coincidence for a bombing victim. So I’m not giving anybody any points there. And yes, the people who guessed it was the Tea Party were wrong and the ones who stuck to it as the details started to trickle out looked like dumbasses. I never got into the prediction game on this one but with the benefit of hindsight I’ll say Islamic terrorism was always the most likely reason.
Authorities are currently on the lookout for Masha who introduced Tamerlon to Islamic extremism and Infowars.com. So it’s obvious that the duo were Tea Party Islamic Jihadists, which just happens to reinforce with my preconceptions. No other evidence is noteworthy.
I’m glad we got that settled!
The august Foreign Policy magazine asks, “If the New York Post isn’t correcting its terrible marathon coverage, what does it correct?” It’s an interesting question: after all, if they felt obliged to correct every nonfactual claim they made, they would run out ink and electrons. Anyway, it seems that the New York Post issued a total of 4 corrections in 2013. This will amuse those familiar with the New York Times: the newspaper of record issues corrections on a daily basis.
In one of the New York Post’s corrections they misspelled “Manhattan”. No biggie, but sort of amusing for a New York paper.