Libelous? I wonder

[tapintoamerica]

I know you may already done so, but take another look at the Daily news story on Clemens and McCready: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_mindy_mccready_weeps_as_she_confirms_aff.html
Now read this: http://www.kget.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=f82fd237-d92e-4bd6-bce8-b78dfd0c1bc2

Specifically, I'm curious about this paragraph: "The New York Daily News broke a story on Monday alleging Clemens had a ten-year affair with McCready, which began when he was 28 and married with two children, and she was underage."

Seems to me the TV station's Web site is claiming that the Daily News implied Clemens had a sexual relationship with an underage girl. And it seems to me the paper did not suggest or imply that. The Daily News said the two met when she was 15, but it proceeds to say they didn't have sex that night or at any time before McCready became a star.

So here are my questions:
1) Am I interpreting the Daily News story correctly?
2) Does Clemens have a case for libel against TV station KGET, which apparently wrote the text on its Web site?
3) Does the Daily News have a case for libel against KGET?
It would be odd, I imagine, but can one media outlet sue another for misinterpreting a story?

 

[imjustagirl]

Well, it's two different stories. You're reading the NYDN's second-day story, which clarifies when McCready says the sexual relationship started.

The first-day story did, in fact, say it was a 10-year relationship that started when he was 28 and she was 15. I believe, at this point, that was somewhat off because I think they had "a relationship" for 14-15 years, but the sex was only 10 years of it. If that makes sense.

 

[tapintoamerica]

I stand corrected. You are right. Here's the original story: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/04/27/2008-04-27_sources_roger_clemens_had_10year_fling_w.html

So now I have a new question: Does the above story (the original) constitute libel? Does the paper essentially backtrack when rephrasing matters in the second-day story?

 

[Lester Bangs]

I am guessing the link you posted was changed to a newer one by the paper, because not only did that story imply they were hitting it, it said they were hitting it.

 

[imjustagirl]

Misleading? Perhaps. But libelous? No. Because the wording is such they can't get nailed for that.

 

[PeteyPirate]

There is no case for libel if the allegations are true. The second-day story in the DN seemed to contradict itself, even, because McReady was quoted as saying she could not refute anything in the first story, which said the affair started when she was 15.

 

[WriteThinking]

Besides the things that imjustagirl and FirstDownPirates said, it would be incumbent on Clemens/McMcCready to also prove actual, intentional malice. Both figures in this case are just too public, too well-known.

 

[EE94]

Besides the things that imjustagirl and FirstDownPirates said, it would be incumbent on Clemens/McMcCready to also prove actual, intentional malice. Both figures in this case are just too public, too well-known.

Malicious intent is key in most libel cases, and I believe you can still be sued for libel even if the information is true. All depends on how and why you used it.

 

[fremont]

Besides the things that imjustagirl and FirstDownPirates said, it would be incumbent on Clemens/McMcCready to also prove actual, intentional malice. Both figures in this case are just too public, too well-known.

I believe you can still be sued for libel even if the information is true.

They can sue, and they'll lose. Of course, different states have different laws...