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.

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.

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.

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

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.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/still-deadlocke.html

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

I said in my first line:

Good for Iseman.

I meant that my friend.

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.

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