PHILTHY

[SnarkShark]

I know this will be shocking to you all, but the Daily News may have misrepresented the actions of a Philadelphia Eagles' employee.

http://deadspin.com/no-that-eagles-employee-wasnt-celebrating-victor-cruzs-1645755439

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The Eagles employee says he was cheering the play, not the injury, and had dropped to one knee to pray for Cruz once it was known he was hurt.

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/10/victor_cruz_injury_eagles_fan_cheer_new_york_daily_news.html#incart_story_package

I wonder if the guy could sue the News for libel.

 

[SnarkShark]

The Eagles employee says he was cheering the play, not the injury, and had dropped to one knee to pray for Cruz once it was known he was hurt.

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/10/victor_cruz_injury_eagles_fan_cheer_new_york_daily_news.html#incart_story_package

I wonder if the guy could sue the News for libel.

Of course he was. And I wouldn't blame him for suing.

 

[Double Down]

1. Did the Daily News know it was intentionally misrepresenting him? I'd bet yes.
2. Is he a public figure? Debatable.
3. Was his reputation harmed or did he suffer financially because of this photo and can he prove it? I doubt it.

Conclusion? Libel suit would be pointless.

 

[SnarkShark]

1. Did the Daily News know it was intentionally misrepresenting him? I'd bet yes.
2. Is he a public figure? Debatable.
3. Was his reputation harmed or did he suffer financially because of this photo and can he prove it? I doubt it.

Conclusion? Libel suit would be pointless.

If he's only going by "Charlie" in all these articles and no one knows his last name, I'd say he's not a public figure.

 

[Steak Snabler]

1. Did the Daily News know it was intentionally misrepresenting him? I'd bet yes.
2. Is he a public figure? Debatable.
3. Was his reputation harmed or did he suffer financially because of this photo and can he prove it? I doubt it.

Conclusion? Libel suit would be pointless.

If he's only going by "Charlie" in all these articles and no one knows his last name, I'd say he's not a public figure.

There's no way in hell an Eagles game day employee is a public figure, unless he's the team mascot.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

1. Did the Daily News know it was intentionally misrepresenting him? I'd bet yes.
2. Is he a public figure? Debatable.
3. Was his reputation harmed or did he suffer financially because of this photo and can he prove it? I doubt it.

Conclusion? Libel suit would be pointless.

If he's only going by "Charlie" in all these articles and no one knows his last name, I'd say he's not a public figure.

There's no way in hell an Eagles game day employee is a public figure, unless he's the team mascot.

I should think his rep could be harmed by showing any number of tweets or internet messages criticizing him.

 

[Double Down]

I think what TDN did here was ****ty, but I don't see how they'd ever lose any kind of libel suit. How does this guy "prove" he was NOT cheering Cruz's injury? (He clearly wasn't but how does one prove such a thing?) Or that there was actual malice involved? The News could easily argue this was an editorial statement, name-calling, and show they did not doctor the photo. As horse**** as I think it was, he's not winning a libel suit.

 

[SnarkShark]

I think what TDN did here was ****ty, but I don't see how they'd ever lose any kind of libel suit. How does this guy "prove" he was NOT cheering Cruz's injury? (He clearly wasn't but how does one prove such a thing?) Or that there was actual malice involved? The News could easily argue this was an editorial statement, name-calling, and show they did not doctor the photo. As horse**** as I think it was, he's not winning a libel suit.

I think it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt he wasn't cheering Cruz's injury, but it wouldn't be that hard. I'm pretty sure there is video evidence of him stopping his cheering soon after the play was over. No way he can know Cruz was injured that quickly.

Also, he doesn't have to prove malice, because he's not a public figure.

 

[Batman]

I think what TDN did here was ****ty, but I don't see how they'd ever lose any kind of libel suit. How does this guy "prove" he was NOT cheering Cruz's injury? (He clearly wasn't but how does one prove such a thing?) Or that there was actual malice involved? The News could easily argue this was an editorial statement, name-calling, and show they did not doctor the photo. As horse**** as I think it was, he's not winning a libel suit.

If they were able to subpoena game footage from NBC, they could probably follow his reaction from beginning to end. Watching a highlight of the play, he's clearly in the frame on the shot from the sideline camera as Cruz goes down. He gives two fist pumps (presumably celebrating the play), but it cuts away after that. A longer or unedited shot would likely show his next reaction.
Whether or not he suffered any damages, though, is harder to prove. If the Eagles fire him over it, he might have a case.

 

[MisterCreosote]

He was probably just enthusiastically voicing his support for the Philly teachers union.

 

[SnarkShark]

I think what TDN did here was ****ty, but I don't see how they'd ever lose any kind of libel suit. How does this guy "prove" he was NOT cheering Cruz's injury? (He clearly wasn't but how does one prove such a thing?) Or that there was actual malice involved? The News could easily argue this was an editorial statement, name-calling, and show they did not doctor the photo. As horse**** as I think it was, he's not winning a libel suit.

If they were able to subpoena game footage from NBC, they could probably follow his reaction from beginning to end. Watching a highlight of the play, he's clearly in the frame on the shot from the sideline camera as Cruz goes down. He gives two fist pumps (presumably celebrating the play), but it cuts away after that. A longer or unedited shot would likely show his next reaction.
Whether or not he suffered any damages, though, is harder to prove. If the Eagles fire him over it, he might have a case.

Agreed. Would be harder to to come up with damages, but there are plenty of good lawyers who are more than able to come up with something.

 

[Versatile]

If Giants fans harass him, he'll have the emotional-toll angle. I think he could turn this into a small settlement. Double Down seems to be ignoring that possibility. He doesn't need an airtight case for a settlement.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

No libel in my opinion, but a good libel lawyer once told us that we see the thing like editors, not like the opposing lawyer. FWIW.

Things could have changed in the 18 years since I worked there, but when I was hired a manager told me that they differ from the Post in that they don't deliberately make up ****, and I found that to be true. Also, we were good about checking with the lawyer because he was on retainer anyway, so why not.

 

[clintrichardson]

this could be libel—not saying he would win a huge verdict, but in general a photo and caption that combine to portray someone in a false light absolutely creates legal liability on the part of the publication.

 

[X-Acto]

There is video that's been all over the place in Philly clearly showing the guy's reaction changing dramatically once he realizes Cruz is hurt. He goes down to one knee and appears to be praying and showing concern for Cruz.

For what it's worth

 

[Double Down]

I agree with everything stated saying he can clearly show he was not cheering Cruz's injury.

I still do not believe he could "win" a libel case against the Daily News. Libel lawsuits are hard.

I am more inclined to believe Vers' theory that he could get money in a settlement. If I were Jeffery Lurie, I might bankroll a lawsuit against The Daily News just as a gesture of faith to my employees that I had their backs, no matter how small. But I can't see that happening, unless Lurie is bored as hell.

 

[Drip]

No libel in my opinion, but a good libel lawyer once told us that we see the thing like editors, not like the opposing lawyer. FWIW.

Things could have changed in the 18 years since I worked there, but when I was hired a manager told me that they differ from the Post in that they don't deliberately make up ****, and I found that to be true. Also, we were good about checking with the lawyer because he was on retainer anyway, so why not.

There is video that's been all over the place in Philly clearly showing the guy's reaction changing dramatically once he realizes Cruz is hurt. He goes down to one knee and appears to be praying and showing concern for Cruz.

For what it's worth

That is EXACTLY what happened. No one cheered once it was clear that Cruz was hurt. Fans gave him a nice ovation as he was helped to the cart. Frank has a point but in this sue me society, I'd say the guy has a good chance of getting some kind of settlement. Overall, what TDN wasn't cool at all. IMO

 

[Drip]

I agree with everything stated saying he can clearly show he was not cheering Cruz's injury.

I still do not believe he could "win" a libel case against the Daily News. Libel lawsuits are hard.

I am more inclined to believe Vers' theory that he could get money in a settlement. If I were Jeffery Lurie, I might bankroll a lawsuit against The Daily News just as a gesture of faith to my employees that I had their backs, no matter how small. But I can't see that happening, unless Lurie is bored as hell.

That's not his style.