Patterico's Pontifications


Iseman Sues New York Times

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 7:48 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Allahpundit at Hot Air has the details:

“Vicki Iseman files $27 million lawsuit against NYT over McCain hit piece.”

The best line: “The good news? Given their revenue trend, they might be judgment-proof by now.”

H/T Mike K.



  1. Nice post DRJ, and nice catch from Dr. K.

    But let’s set the timer until there are bleats regarding “attacks on freedom of the press” regarding this lawsuit.

    Comment by Eric Blair (3e2520) — 12/30/2008 @ 7:50 pm

  2. Think Maverick’s excited at the prospect of reliving this chapter of his life on the stand, if need be?

    He should be flattered as hell.

    Comment by nk (2f022a) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:00 pm

  3. When I think of a woman suing NYT over a hit piece, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin come to mind.

    Good luck, Ms. Iseman.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ceab4f) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:06 pm

  4. Love to hear the Times explain their exhaustive due diligence on this

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:06 pm

  5. This would be the same NYT that was handed the John Edwards smoking gun and refused to publish any unsubstantiated allegations

    Comment by Dana (79a78b) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:10 pm

  6. And yet the Times insists that revealing the truth about Pinchy and um, you know Princess Caroline is off-limits. As was The Breck Girl’s affair and paternity. On the other hand, total fabrications and innuendo about McCain and the lady lobbyist are just hunky dory.

    I’d like to have seen the Times editorial board and Pinch brought up on treason charges. How many American troops died because the Times gave aid and comfort to the enemy? Of course to libtards, Bush and the red states are the enemy.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:11 pm

  7. She needs to get this suit filed ahead of the creditors. It’ll be 25 cents on the dollar by the time she gets a judgement.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 12/30/2008 @ 9:04 pm

  8. The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health.

    something doesn’t wash here. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?


    Comment by donviti (49cc8d) — 12/31/2008 @ 6:52 am

  9. dang and I almost forgot, the only thing they are arguing is he didn’t bang her. Not that there was quid pro quo or he threw business her way…

    ahhhh, where’s Abramoff when you need him?

    Comment by donviti (49cc8d) — 12/31/2008 @ 6:58 am

  10. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?

    That was before the CHANGE, donviti. In this bold new America, it’s time to put your hand out.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:12 am

  11. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?

    That is usually the case, but there is a certain wonderful schadenfreude in seeing one bastion of the left (NYT) hoist by the left’s own petard (trial lawyers).

    Comment by quasimodo (edc74e) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:36 am

  12. dang and I almost forgot, the only thing they are arguing is he didn’t bang her. Not that there was quid pro quo or he threw business her way…

    Really. Quote the part of teh filing that says just that.

    The problem is that not only can they in no way PROVE their slanderous suggests as to a sexual relationship (for the very simple reason that it didn’t happen), they can not prove their other “allegations”, which puts them in a tough spot when the best (and often only) defense in this kind of case is called “the truth”.

    Which, as it has long been obvious, much of the media has had a problem with lately.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:43 am

  13. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?

    The NYT killed off any sympathy we had for them long ago. Humiliation is too good for them. The sooner they go bankrupt the better.

    Comment by LarryD (feb78b) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:45 am

  14. Hey, NYT may be moribund and therefore immune to paying damages, but after it’s dead and locked away in a coffin, ONE MORE FINAL EXTRA SCREW is more than justified!!

    This is Cindy’s work: More power to her!

    Comment by elixelx (bfcb6e) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:05 am

  15. This could get mussy. Better to let sleeping dogs lie or fabricate. (Don’t remember how that ends….)

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:09 am

  16. What would bankruptcy actually mean to Punch? Donald Trump companies have been involved in how many bankruptcies and yet he remains a friggin’ billioniare, renowned for his business acumen and hair.

    I think it was Kuhn from baseball who moved to Fla. and bought expensive real estate to shelter himself from loss of personal fortune through Homestead laws.

    In any case, anyone care to bet that a bailout for the media is OFF the table in an Obama/Reid/Pelosi reign? Afterall, the media twists themselves into pretzels providing cover for the libtard pols. Think Senator/Princess um/ you know Caroline would vote against it?

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:10 am

  17. No need to worry about NY Times fat cats, if the Dems in Congress won’t bail them out, they’ll get the UAW pension funds to buy their worthless paper. Yep, life in the Big Apple will go on, and only the poor widows and orphans in Detroit will go cold and hungry.

    Comment by Ropelight (d40bc3) — 12/31/2008 @ 10:22 am

  18. Will the NYTs scream tort reform now?

    And isn’t this an argument against tort reform fellow conservatives? You go Vicky and have your day in court.

    Comment by Joe (dcebbd) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:07 am

  19. A tort reform that would be nice:
    the gutting of Sullivan.

    Comment by Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (1b7d77) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:10 am

  20. Good for Iseman.

    That’s it! That was the reason McCain lost!

    Not his policies, Bush or Palin!!!

    A 2 day lifespan story that countless Dems like me tried to ignore on the basis of having nothing to do with the issues. Yup that must have done him in.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:23 am

  21. See, this is why we think you’re stupid, Oiram…

    We aren’t talking about McCain losing, we’re talking about someone who was slandered holding the paper accountable.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:30 am

  22. I took the time to read the entire 44-page complaint filed with the court. There is nothing frivolous or scurrilous in the complaint. And to the one who suggested the only complaint was against the “romantic” accusations, the complaint attacked the “romantic” accusations as well as the “inappropriate” accusations.

    For the record, this $27M lawsuit could finish with a number over $100M. The $27M is only the compensatory aspect of the demand; the punitive aspect is left to the jury to decide and can tend toward three times the compensatory aspect.

    And, yes, NYT and MSM need to take a big hit on this one–and many others–to get them to start trying to report honestly.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:35 am

  23. This is why I think your a spinmeister Scott:

    I said in my first line:

    Good for Iseman.

    I meant that my friend.

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 12:10 pm

  24. And all your other lines, Oiram, were idiotic.

    Comment by Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:05 pm

  25. Off topic, but appropriate for New Years Eve:

    Inspector “Javert” Sullivan picks the first Hewitt Award winner:

    The battle for the Hewitt Award in 2008 remains a tie with 29 percent each for Victoria Jackson for this and Kim Crawford for this. The first ever Hewitt Award is a great honor. It takes Hewittian levels of dishonesty, extremism, agitprop and bile to win it. But you can break the tie here. You have till midnight.

    Of course why not pick Sullivan for this “award” for his anti Palin Jihad and Trig Trutherism?

    Comment by Joe (dcebbd) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:48 pm

  26. #24 Thanks Evil, there’s a compliment in there somewhere :)

    Comment by Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:52 pm

  27. See, this is why we think you’re stupid, Oiram…

    Correction – we don’t think it, we know it.

    Comment by Dmac (eb0dd0) — 12/31/2008 @ 2:02 pm

  28. Well I’ll pile on Oiram–but I’d rather see Iseman pile on the New York Times bank account.

    Sloppy and scurrilous just won’t do. You can say, correctly, that Hillary, Sarah Palin, and John McCain are public figures, and the NYT can say that they get some protection there; but Vicky Iseman was most definitely a private figure, just trying to live her life. She did not need this crapola from the NYT and the bastards should pay for it. In fact they should pay lots for it. It’s just too doggone bad that the Olberdouche didn’t run a story about her being the “worst person in the world”–we could have had a twofer going in the lawsuits.

    Comment by Mike Myers (31af82) — 12/31/2008 @ 2:11 pm

  29. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?

    Libel and slander aren’t frivolous. “They didn’t tell me not to stick my hand in a disposal” is frivolous.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/1/2009 @ 7:58 am

  30. You can say, correctly, that Hillary, Sarah Palin, and John McCain are public figures, and the NYT can say that they get some protection there

    Even if Vicki Iseman were a public figure, the NYT could still be legally liable for libelous statements. Most celebrities allow factless statements to stand simply for publicity reasons; for instance, it is common for a male and female celebrity to appear in public together to generate press from the gossip rags and paparazzi, even though the ‘relationship’ is arranged between the celebrities’ managers and agents solely for that purpose.

    Making up a an inappropriate complete fabrication that smears a celebrity subject will not protect the offender. Carol Burnett proved that almost 30 years ago:

    Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents’ own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.

    Here is the Second Appellate Court judge’s opinion, with the factual details of the story and how the Enquirer’s Brian Walker published the libelious story despite having literally no verification.

    Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791) — 1/1/2009 @ 8:52 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2689 secs.