1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!


Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by tapintoamerica, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    I know I have asked this sort of question before, but every case, as they say, is different.

    In the passage below, the writer throws out a series of allegations and a series of alleged perps but never links any individual to a specific action. So they're all lumped in with everything in perception. Would anybody have a claim from this? Just curious.


    No one told these men about living-in-the-light, confronting the unsympathetic, non-empathetic quasi-hostile angry, envious sports press - vultures who hypocritically refused to document the coke-snorting, womanizing, gambling and drug abuse by guys like Marino, Montana, Kelly and Elway, just as they’ve reluctantly covered the fall of Brett Favre . .
  2. Rhody31

    Rhody31 Well-Known Member

  3. <b><i>Reluctantly</b></i> covered the fall of Favre? Ha. People have made careers out of this.
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Since that column isn't in English, I don't think it's going to do much damage anyway.
  5. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    Nope is correct.
    Libel (and we're only talking civil here, because libel is a tort claim) must prove intent and malice. In addition, if written opinion is marked or implied, it becomes exponentially more difficult to prove.
  6. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    You always frequently have to prove actual damages, which is why (I believe) Rodney Dangerfield famously got a libel award of $1.
  7. MartinonMTV2

    MartinonMTV2 New Member

    always frequently?
  8. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    I think frequently always works better.
  9. beardpuller

    beardpuller Active Member

    How in God's name did you find this "columnist" and his work? Please promise me you'll never link to it again.
  10. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Did anyone else get a Panera ad while reading that? I think they are missing their demo.

    And Jim Brown as a father figure? He makes Ben Roethlisberger look like Matt Lauer when it comes to the ladies.

    Dez is a public figure, so libel, of course, is much harder to establish.
  11. I had some time tonight to go back and read some other stories on that site. It's.... entertaining.

    I am an avid NHL fan, read this story three times, have my own criticisms of Versus and still am not quite sure what the point is.

  12. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    doh! also frequently. Although that is just as awkwardly worded, now that I think about it... But why would I ever want to think about posts on a message board? :D
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page