NY Times Sued By Lobbyist (Yes, THAT Lobbyist)

[Flying Headbutt]

Lobbyist sues the NY Times for beating around the bush and trying to imply something may have been going on.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081230/mccain_lobbyist_ny_times.html?.v=3

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Great.
Let's start the discovery process tomorrow.
Whenever you're ready, Senator McCain.

 

[DanOregon]

This story was such a dumb move by the New York Times - having read it, it would have been just as strong, if not stronger, had they focused on McCain's ties to lobbyists instead of pursuing the "affair" angle. Instead, they have to deal with this kind of stupidity.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Why sue the New York Times? They're not worth anything.

 

[Pencil Dick]

As the owner of a couple of hundred shares of NYT stock that once traded near $50 per share, I've gotta admit - Hejira Henry's reply hurts.

Badly.

It also makes me wonder why I held onto this **** for so long. "What a stupid I am."

 

[DanOregon]

I really wouldn't want to be the editor who has to take the stand and get asked about how the Times has handled allegations of infidelity against other politicians.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The Times won't have to blame the economy for more layoffs if they lose this case.

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

That was one of the weirdest-written stories in recent memory.

It's like someone (a lawyer?) decided, "We can't say they had an affair, but let's just imply it very strongly and everything will be great."

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

People here actually believe that McCain wants this lawsuit any more than the Times does?

 

[Lugnuts]

The truth is always a defense against a libel or defamation claim.

How was the article untruthful?

By the standards journalists impose upon themselves, perhaps it was in poor judgment to run it...

But in these cases you have to prove (1) falsehood and (2) malice.

Where's the falsehood?

Case dismissed at summary judgment.

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

The truth is always a defense against a libel claim.

How was the article untruthful?

By the standards journalists impose upon themselves, perhaps it was in poor judgment to run it...

But in these cases you have to prove (1) falsehood and (2) malice.

Where's the falsehood?

Case dismissed at summary judgment.

For the record, I don't think they have to prove malice in cases involving people who aren't public figures.

 

[SF_Express]

[For the record, I don't think they have to prove malice in cases involving people who aren't public figures.

Well, obviously no problem there on the McCain side, and I'm wondering whether the lobbyist for a powerful industry would be considered one as well.

 

[old_tony]

People here actually believe that McCain wants this lawsuit any more than the Times does?

I don't know if McCain wants it, but he's not the one who filed it. She did.

Are you implying that the Times' defense will be that McCain may have had affairs with other women, but not this one, so they're in the clear?

I wouldn't think this woman would file the suit, knowing that everything about her will now be looked into, if her closet wasn't pretty clean.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Hubris? Anger? All kinds of reasons to file a suit, other than the logical one. And I would think she's surely a public figure

 

[old_tony]

And I would think, given the Times' general attitude toward all things Republican, that malice won't be too hard to prove.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Editorials don't constitute prima facie malice. And proving that news gathering was malicious will be darn near impossible. You may not like the stuff the reporters dig up, but facts you don't like don't constitute malice.

 

[old_tony]

Let's put it this way: If there are any honest folks in the NYT newsroom, the NYT would do well to keep them away from the woman's lawyers.

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

[For the record, I don't think they have to prove malice in cases involving people who aren't public figures.

Well, obviously no problem there on the McCain side, and I'm wondering whether the lobbyist for a powerful industry would be considered one as well.

Yep, that's the issue - not McCain, but the lobbyist. There's an obvious argument for her public figuredom, but the balance of what I've read suggests she wouldn't be considered one.