Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2012

David Shuster and Keith Olbermann About to Be Sued for Defamation by James O’Keefe?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:56 am

Keith Olbermann in December:

OLBERMANN: “The Rumpus Room with Johnny Olson” will not be seen tonight on Dumont, so we can instead bring you “Countdown,” the longest continuously-running 8PM news hour on cable. Unless you consider Fox — “news.” We’re live each night at 8 Eastern. Every night is a “Best Of ‘Countdown'” night.

James O’Keefe — activist, pseudo-journalist, and convicted felon infamous for his ambush-style, selectively-edited interviews — faces a possible civil sexual-harassment suit.

. . . .

OLBERMANN: He’s on — O’Keefe that is — federal parole after he was charged with felony for attempting to maliciously interfere with Senator Landrieu’s office telephone system in New Orleans. Did he seem, especially in that context, fazed at all by what was going on in the courtroom?

(H/t.)

There are several falsehoods there. O’Keefe is not a convicted felon. He pled to a misdemeanor. He is not on “parole.” He is on “probation.” He did not attempt to maliciously interfere with Senator Landrieu’s telephone system. As I noted yesterday and have noted in the past, the U.S. Attorney conceded that there was no evidence that O’Keefe intended to tamper with the phone system or commit any felony. This is from a document signed by the U.S. Attorney:

O'Keefe Government Admission 1

Olbermann is staring a lawsuit in the face, and he’s not the only one. As I reported yesterday, David Shuster made the exact same misrepresentation while hosting for Olbermann’s crappy show, calling O’Keefe a “convicted felon.” After I sent O’Keefe a link to my post, O’Keefe threatened to sue Shuster:

One last chance, @DavidShuster. Put in a correction today or legal action against you is imminent. I can and will prove you lied w/ malice.

No correction appeared, but Shuster did reappear on Twitter a couple of hours ago to pimp the inaccurate segment:

In case you missed it, my segment on @andrewbreitbart’s hypocrisy given @jamesokeefeIII http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/david-shuster-calls-andrew-breitbart-a-publicity-seeking-hack-urges-him-to-get-help via @CountdownKO

I’ll be sending O’Keefe a link to this post as well. Shuster and Olbermann had better issue retractions, pronto. It may be too late for Shuster. We’ll see if Olby is similarly arrogant and dismissive of the truth. Given his history . . .

73 Responses to “David Shuster and Keith Olbermann About to Be Sued for Defamation by James O’Keefe?”

  1. Making a Costco run for more popcorn.

    Old Coot (4d6f62)

  2. Can Olbermann get a WiFi connection in his bath tub where he must be hiding after the thumping he’s taken all week by Breitbart and Stranahan?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  3. Racisys

    JD (318f81)

  4. “Unless you consider Fox — “news.””.

    Did you know Keith Olbermann is the country’s most handsome man? He is unless you consider the other 156,923,732 “men”.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  5. Life is unfair. Keith Olberdouche makes $7.5 million annual salary while the sainted Chrissie “I squat to pee and Obama gives me a thrill up my leg” assclown Matthews makes a mere $5 mil. Surprised Rachel Maddow doesn’t file a sex discrimination suit with a salary of only $2 million. I think they are all jackasses, including $20 million man Bill O’Reilly, who is clueless about oil being fungible and wants Obama to pull a Nixon with gas prices. Or oh yes, let’s tax oil companies more so they can pass it on to consumers. Idiots don’t even realize govts. take a big cut of the pump price and profit % margin is less than many industries. Derrick Rose basketball mvp gets a $95 mil contract and will get as much as $200 million from Adidas to endorse shoes. Why not a windfall profits tax on him? IMHO everyone I’ve mentioned in this post is a freaking moron. I make it a point NOT to buy anything they advertise on their shows or endorse. I guess the bottom line is any one of them can afford to settle a lawsuit. I wonder if jerk O’Reilly settled with the women he was accused of harassing. Life is unfair. Dan Rather got screwed and should be making megamillions. Ditto dipwad green lizard Chas Johnson.

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d32e4c)

  6. Life is unfair. Dan Rather got screwed and should be making megamillions. Ditto dipwad green lizard Chas Johnson.

    Who tinkled in YOUR corn flakes???

    My Sharia Moor (fd42ae)

  7. #3 “Racisys” is that an IPO or the “new” racism?
    #4 Good one, Noodles!
    #5 Consider this: Life is unfair = (insert name) is President

    felipe (2ec14c)

  8. Olbermonkey makes $7.5 mil at Current TV?

    Doubtful.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  9. Okay, maybe not doubtful.

    Just dumb.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  10. One is reminded of this;

    http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/larry-king.html

    narciso (87e966)

  11. O’Keefe is unquestionably a “public figure” within the meaning of New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny: In addition to proving that the defamatory statement was false (as it quite obviously is, for exactly the reasons Patterico has pinpointed), O’Keefe would have to prove that the defendants were guilty of “actual malice.” That’s defined for purposes of defamation law as actual, subjective knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement was false, or reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity. Such things as ease of verification or refutation can be considered in weighing whether a given defendant was acting with reckless disregard.

    Here, 30 seconds on Google would have permitted even a grade-schooler — much less a journalist with the mad internet skillz of these internationally famous pundit-journalists — to confirm that O’Keefe isn’t a felon. Accordingly, I think the odds are quite good that O’Keefe could win on either prong of the Sullivan standard.

    His target defendants are solvent. The defendants’ best practical defense is to damages: Olbermann’s current following is smaller than it was when he was at MSNBC, and the scope of the publication of the defamatory statements is therefore smaller. And before Patterico’s post yesterday, I’d never heard of Shuster. Nevertheless, the dissemination of these falsehoods has reached at least hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions. And given that O’Keefe’s livelihood is investigative reporting, he may be able to develop persuasive evidence that these comments have caused him financial injury.

    Put it this way: O’Keefe would have no trouble attracting top legal talent — with expertise and experience specifically in defamation lawsuits — who’d eagerly represent him on a contingent fee basis, as part of which they’d likely be willing to advance the litigation expenses out of their own pockets.

    Beldar (7f6af2)

  12. Old Coot, Land-O-Lakes Butter, with coarse sea salt, and beverage of choice!!

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  13. Beldar – Red meat, it’s what’s for dinner!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. except in Dem house
    childless Dem gals feed their pets
    Blue Buffalo

    Colonel Haiku (cf30ed)

  15. they took True Blue Test®
    only Blue Buffalo® has the
    cold-form Life Source® bits

    Colonel Haiku (cf30ed)

  16. just kill me now…

    Colonel Haiku (cf30ed)

  17. So, # 5 (Calypso Louie Farrakhan) – I’m not following you on Dan Rather. Why do you think he “got screwed and should be making megamillions?”
    Just curious

    SCOPE

    Scope (8e96b0)

  18. “No one named David Schuster ever said anything about anyone being a convicted felon, no one was raped at occupy, and I’m not a washed up hack who’s been fired from every meaningful job I’ve had.” – my prediction on olby’s retraction.

    Ghost (af134f)

  19. Belder

    O’Keefe is unquestionably a “public figure” within the meaning of New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny: In addition to proving that the defamatory statement was false (as it quite obviously is, for exactly the reasons Patterico has pinpointed), O’Keefe would have to prove that the defendants were guilty of “actual malice.” That’s defined for purposes of defamation law as actual, subjective knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement was false, or reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity. Such things as ease of verification or refutation can be considered in weighing whether a given defendant was acting with reckless disregard.

    Here, 30 seconds on Google would have permitted even a grade-schooler — much less a journalist with the mad internet skillz of these internationally famous pundit-journalists — to confirm that O’Keefe isn’t a felon. Accordingly, I think the odds are quite good that O’Keefe could win on either prong of the Sullivan standard.Comment by Beldar — 2/26/2012 @ 3:32 pm

    No question public figure, may be difficult to overcome intentional malice. However, your point of a google search, plus possible multiple repeats of the comment among office personnel should make harder to believe that he did not know it was false.

    joe (93323e)

  20. Since David Shuster has still not retracted his story and is now Tweeting about nip slips I am forced to tell an outrageous lie about him.

    David Shuster is the most honest man in journalism!

    Noodles (3681c4)

  21. If this were to go court, it could be interesting, because of the actual malice without forethought standard applied to public figures.

    There is no doubt that Olberguy and Shuster intended malice, but if it comes to court they would have to swear that their assertions were innocent because of ignorance, despite their profession as newscasters and journalists.

    In other words, they would have to admit that they did not know that O’Keefe was not a felon.

    If they did that, they would essentially be saying that as journalist their word is worthless and can not be trusted.

    It’s kind of hard to keep up the charade of being a journalist when you lie and admit it.

    I know we already know that, but people who openly lie and admit it tend to be ignored — more than already, in their cases.

    O’Keefe should sue just to see if they will perjure themselves to maintain a modicum of respect or just confess to what they are.

    Regardless, O’Keefe might lose the battle in court, but win the war against lying liars.

    Ag80 (b0b671)

  22. Well one recalls Sid ‘Vicious’ Blumenthal, all out attack against the entire center right, in the end, the judge awarded him a token dollar.

    narciso (87e966)

  23. Dan Rather was SCREWED over. Who the hell cares if he tried to tamper with our democracy by lying about forged memos? Who the hell cares that long after it was proven forged, Dan showed absurd and self serving bad faith.

    They guy put his credibility on the line sheering for partisan destruction at the last moment of a presidential campaign. A Clinton supporter bashing an Air Force pilot’s service… he was willing to be that flagrantly inconsistent. And for this career destroying service to John Kerry, Mr Rather really honestly should be making at least a trillion dollars a year.

    All power to the Soviets!

    Dustin (401f3a)

  24. Current TV:
    An employer of idiots, or incompetents?
    Yes!

    That will jump-start the ratings.

    AD-RtR/OS! (7d4e01)

  25. Legal question…

    if a person falsely accuses you of a crime, a person who was once a journalist of some renown, but now almost literally no one pays attention to him… is it still defamation?

    Its not an academic question for me.

    Ah, well, i am sure i will find out very soon.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  26. 17 scope..because it is the libtard way of operating in an alternative reality. Amazing the double standards applied by so-called journalists. I think Rather has always been a horse’s ass. Can’t say Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Andrea mitchell et al are any better. And walter cronkite perhaps far worse with his filthy lies about Vietnam war (the most trusted man in America?).

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d32e4c)

  27. 17 scope..because it is the libtard way of operating in an alternative reality. Amazing the double standards applied by so-called journalists. I think Rather has always been a horse’s ass. Can’t say Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Andrea mitchell et al are any better. And walter cronkite perhaps far worse with his filthy lies about Vietnam war (the most trusted man in America?).

    Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d32e4c)

  28. if a person falsely accuses you of a crime, a person who was once a journalist of some renown, but now almost literally no one pays attention to him… is it still defamation?

    — Defamation or beclowning oneself.

    Six of one, half a dozen of another.

    I hear that someone once falsely accused Olbermann of being a journalist.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  29. To steal a Simpson’s line..

    There is no Keith Olbermann. Its just a story that parents make up to scare their children – like the Boogeyman.

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  30. While I’m sure that O’Keefe could win in a fair court hearing, there are two problems…

    1) The likelihood of O’Keefe not getting f*cked in court by someone with Breitbart Derangement Syndrome is only slightly better than 50/50…

    2) This will never go to trial (or at least most of the people he names in the lawsuit will never see court). The majority (the individuals and their employers) will likely settle quickly and issue very easy to ignore retractions/apologies. Any settlement agreement should include some kind of clause regarding future repetition of the lie, if such a thing is possible. a “Fine, pay us $$$ now, and we’ll let you go, but if you say it again we expect a check the next day for $$$$$$$” clause.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  31. Beldar said it. The issue will be actual damages, whatever that means. O’Keefe could “win” a $1.00.

    That’s what I would vote for, were I on the jury, BTW, if I followed the law, considering Shuster’s and Olberman’s audiences. O’Keefe has no reputation with them that could be further damaged.

    Preaching to the choir sometimes has its ad

    nk (dec503)

  32. Preaching to the choir sometimes has its advantages.

    nk (dec503)

  33. Good to see you around, Scott. How they hanging?

    nk (dec503)

  34. That’s what I would vote for, were I on the jury, BTW, if I followed the law, considering Shuster’s and Olberman’s audiences. O’Keefe has no reputation with them that could be further damaged.

    Interesting thought: as America’s media further polarizes, collecting for defamation will become increasingly impossible, as audiences eagerly lap up any misinformation they are fed — meaning lies against their enemies will fall on deaf ears outside the target audience, and have no effect on the opinions of the already indoctrinated.

    What a cheery set of thoughts that is!

    Patterico (feda6b)

  35. I agree it is nice to hear from Scott. All I ever hear about him lately is how he wishes bear rape on people, ergo Andrew Breitbart is something something something, because of blah blah blah and etc.

    IN ALL CAPS!!!

    Patterico (feda6b)

  36. @ Aaron (#26): If the defamation defendant himself has no credibility — such that his defamatory statement ought not to have been believed, and that all fair-minded people in the community would have disbelieved it, meaning little if any damage was in fact done to the plaintiff’s reputation — those circumstances are fair grounds for vigorous cross-examination and argument by defense counsel, and they could quite properly be considered by the factfinder in assessing money damages. But they don’t affect the liability determination.

    Thus, it’s still possible for Dan Rather to defame someone even today, but it’s likely that the plaintiff’s damages today would be less than a comparable plaintiff’s damages in 2003 (before Rathergate) because Rather no longer has CBS News and its *cough* credibility to give the falsehood credibility. And it would be entirely fair game to defend a case today with the argument that only an idiot would still believe anything Dan Rather says about anyone else (including the plaintiff) any more. So yeah, there have been situations where a defamation defendant’s own lawyer has ended up arguing that his client’s lack of credibility means there wasn’t actually much, if any, actual harm done to the plaintiff’s reputation.

    There’s a variation on this, which is the “this whopper was so obvious no one should have believed it” defense. “I saw Bill Gates break into a Microsoft building and steal $5 from the petty cash drawer” would be defamatory, but only an idiot could possibly have believed it, and Gates’ reputation hasn’t actually been harmed by such an outlandish fiction.

    Although these are logical and proper arguments — really, the suggesting of reasonable inferences that the defense counsel is asking the jury to draw — they carry a risks. If mishandled, or if the plaintiff’s spin is slightly more adept, these arguments can end up leaving a bad taste in jurors’ mouths. It very easily may sound to them like only a slight variation on “My client is so bad that he’s not worth your time to punish.” That can backfire badly.

    Beldar (7f6af2)

  37. @ Patterico (#35): My view is a bit less bleak.

    You’re probably right that Olbermann’s and Shuster’s audiences already thought so badly of O’Keefe that he had no reputation with them that was capable of being damaged, no matter how egregious the lie.

    That Olbermann & Shuster do have some audience, though, is relevant to establish the initial publication element of the tort. And then that becomes the evidentiary foundation for a showing of foreseeable further re-publication of the defamatory statement to broader audiences, including those who will be suckered by the lie into believing the falsehoods.

    The fact that the Left tends toward homogeneous views that are constantly reinforced through their own echo chamber (a/k/a the MSM) doesn’t mean the falsehoods originated there can’t do damage in the unbiased population outside. And it’s the unfair tarnish on O’Keefe’s reputation among the fair-minded that generates his potential reputational damages.

    Beldar (7f6af2)

  38. Recall that, in general, the original publisher of the defamatory statement is liable for damages caused through others’ re-publication of the defamatory statement if that re-publication was foreseeable. When Dan Defendant falsely whispers to the dean’s secretary that Paul Plaintiff cheated on the cell biology & histology final exam, Dan’s on the hook not only for the secretary’s lowered opinion of Paul Plaintiff, but also for the damages caused to Paul when the dean expels Paul from medical school as a cheater: Someone in Dan Defendant’s position ought reasonably have assumed that the secretary would repeat (i.e., republish) the slander to the dean, so Dan can’t argue that he’s off the hook because it was someone else (the secretary) who actually transmitted the slander to the dean.

    (Note that there is a distinct legal issue as to whether the secretary is liable, along with Dan Defendant, for re-publishing the slander to the dean, but … that would probably be the bonus question.)

    Beldar (7f6af2)

  39. I left out another factor which would be in O’Keefe’s favor were he to decide to sue: The defamatory statements were very clearly statements of objective, verifiable fact — not statements of opinion. In general (and subject to some state-by-state variation), opinions can’t form the basis for a defamation claim. But whether one is or isn’t a felon is a classic, paradigmatic example of an objective fact which is indisputably established by public records.

    And in particular, a false allegation that someone has been convicted of a particular crime is the type of defamation in which the plaintiff generally doesn’t have to bother putting on evidence that the falsehood was harmful to his reputation or property. Instead, this is the kind of statement that’s conclusively presumed to be harmful.

    The “fact versus opinion” distinction is hugely important, and one of the key tools that defamation defendants rely upon to get these cases thrown out before trial via defense motion(s) for summary judgment. But it’s a tool that Olbermann and Shuster can’t use.

    Beldar (7f6af2)

  40. It is the plaintif’s burden to prove damages.

    In Illinois, liability and damages are two separate issues if a jury demand is made at the time of appearance.

    If I were defending this case, I would default on liability and demand prove up by jury.

    nk (dec503)

  41. Save my client a lot of money. No discovery unless I request it. (The plaintiff’s assets are not discoverable pre-judgment, super-especially in a First Amendment case which under Sullivan does not permit punitive damages.)

    nk (dec503)

  42. That’s what I would vote for, were I on the jury, BTW, if I followed the law, considering Shuster’s and Olberman’s audiences. O’Keefe has no reputation with them that could be further damaged.

    Preaching to the choir sometimes has its ad[vantages]

    Wow. I did not realize it could work out that way. That is quite an insight laymen would rarely figure out.

    Does it matter that folks like me have come to hear of the lie via bloggers criticizing Shuster? Is the proximate cause of that lie still Shuster? Is this one of those issues that varies by jurisdiction, or am I simply wrong?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  43. Is the proximate cause of that lie

    i’m sorry, I meant the cause of my hearing the lie. There have to be plenty of people who heard about this lie and then read comments sections such as this one where there is disagreement as to whether O’Keefe is a criminal.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  44. Proximate cause goes to injury. If you’ve heard but it hasn’t hurt ….

    nk (dec503)

  45. Proximate cause goes to injury. If you’ve heard but it hasn’t hurt ….

    Comment by nk

    I tried to be clever enough to work around that. Obviously those who are fair and read Patterico’s post will not come away believing Shuster’s lie. So no injury.

    But I am speculating (unrealistically) that there are some good faith folks reading the exchange between the trolls and the other commenters and wondering about whether they can trust O’Keefe. I have to admit, this is unconvincing.

    I just feel like there should be some damages for outrageous behavior like this. I should be arguing for punitive damages (which you explained are not possible because of a Supreme Court ruling) instead of actual damages.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  46. Fight fire with fire.

    Shuster and Olberman are a couple of no-account parasites who, if not for the entertainment industry’s gay mafia, would be working at McDonald’s.

    “Would you like to try our $3.00 iced latte that only cost us $0.30 to make?”

    “No? You are the worst person in the world. So there.”

    nk (dec503)

  47. I hope this lawsuit proceeds and Shuster has to argue that everyone who believes him was already completely in the tank and convinced of a ridiculous amount of propaganda just by virtue of still watching.

    I think that is a rare truth, and I hope Shuster actually has the audacity to speak it.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  48. nk, or Beldar, or Pat or whoever knows,

    As a practical matter, do lawyers regularly use the Hand Formula to calculate breach of duty? Or are there statutory methods of calculation?

    Leviticus (870be5)

  49. To cut to the chase, friends, I am not sure on what basis Shuster would claim O’Keefe was a “convicted felon.” It could have been an honest mistake, since O’Keefe was charged with a felony, and did plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Alternatively, it could have been an intentional lie — which seems harder to believe; Shuster didn’t need to say “convicted felon” to make his hit piece on O’Keefe do its job.

    If it was an intentional lie, perhaps Shuster wants to be sued? Maybe in discovery he can probe into this Naffe matter? And whatever the truth of what happened with Naffe, that will be ugly litigation. Possible?

    milowent (1b563e)

  50. Beldar #37,

    I think any benefit a defendant might get from his own questionable character or reputation would be offset by a showing of malice, reckless disregard, or any evidence that tends to show the defamation was intentional, made for personal gain, or based on ill-will. Furthermore, as you suggest above, this may even rise to Libel per se.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  51. Alternatively, it could have been an intentional lie — which seems harder to believe; Shuster didn’t need to say “convicted felon” to make his hit piece on O’Keefe do its job.

    I disagree. This convicted felon thing has been corrected numerous times now. Shuster has to have come across that. It’s a giddy smear.

    If it was an intentional lie, perhaps Shuster wants to be sued? Maybe in discovery he can probe into this Naffe matter?

    I don’t understand why they would allow a fishing expedition when the facts he requires to see that O’Keefe is not a convicted felon can be provided so easily. So easily he wouldn’t really need discovery.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  52. Also, Beldar, I agree with you that re-publication is the issue. It doesn’t matter who the target audience was. As I recall, courts have even allowed liability based on re-publication by the plaintiff himself, such as when a fired employee had to repeat defamatory statements by a former employer to explain in a job application why he had been fired.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  53. Dustin,

    Defamation claims put a plaintiff’s reputation on trial in order to calculate damages. It may not be relevant on liability but virtually anything O’Keefe has done is fair game on damages.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  54. @Dustin #51 – maybe you’re right, i don’t know enough about how closely Shuster has followed O’Keefe. And I don’t know how much discovery can be done in a lawsuit, but Sherrod suit seems to be dragging out forever, so these things must be expensive.

    milowent (1b563e)

  55. “If they did that, they would essentially be saying that as journalist their word is worthless and can not be trusted.”

    And, your point is?

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  56. Defamation claims put a plaintiff’s reputation on trial in order to calculate damages.

    That makes a lot of sense. I stand corrected. What a horrible trial that would be.

    Sherrod suit seems to be dragging out forever, so these things must be expensive.

    I bet they are.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  57. i don’t know enough about how closely Shuster has followed O’Keefe.

    Patterico has repeatedly called on Shuster to correct. Shuster knows right now that he owes this correction, and he has instead tweeted about goofy nonsense.

    I think that shows bad faith. I admit I haven’t followed Shuster either, but I think professional journalists should have verified something like ‘he’s a convicted felon’, and those who throw that around after it’s shown there was no evidence of a felony are reprehensible.

    Not that Dave’s snark is wrong. This is a very screwed up profession.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  58. Leviticus,

    I think many state courts and bar associations use the Hand approach in writing tort opinions and jury instructions. Ultimately, however, in most states it is jurors who decide liability and they rely on common sense, e.g., some combination of fairness and economic impact/burden (subject to the Court’s instructions). I think jurors in defamation cases can be especially responsive to claims of unfairness, perhaps because they can identify with the righteous indignation felt by the victim of slander or libel.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. The trial may or may not be horrible, Dustin, but discovery in a defamation case is not for the meek.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. As for how familiar Shuster is with O’Keefe, read the link in this comment by Pamela. Apparently Shuster has been covering this story, and getting corrected, on and off for two years.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  61. To add to what DRJ said, Dram Shop is statutory (strict liability). Loco parentis (e.g. teacher) is not negligence but wanton and willful. DUI too. For some examples.

    nk (dec503)

  62. Best known is wrongful death. It did not exist in the common law.

    nk (dec503)

  63. I think the legal history of wrongful death claims is fascinating, but I’m fascinated by some quirky things.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  64. Didn’t intentionally lying on TV become legal after Fox v. Akre/Wilson?

    the ragman (4f5f96)

  65. Anyone else suspect ragman is a liar?

    JD (448fa8)

  66. This is the story ragman is discussing.

    At the very least, ragman is misguided.

    It’s a familiar story, I’m afraid. A dishonest bastard brings unfair litigation, loses, and obfuscates all the facts while useful idiots lionize.

    Wilson would intentionally block ambush interview victims from physically being able to leave an area.

    He and Akre wanted to air a story that did not have evidence backing it up. A fox station Murdoch did not yet own (but later came to own). News) instead aired a version with both sides of the story. Akre and Wilson sued the stations for convoluted reasons, but they boiled down to employment issues. The court was never asked to rule on whether the media is allowed to lie.

    Florida’s Second District Court ruled that Akre and Wilson’s case had no merit from its inception.

    But because the name Murdoch and Fox were out there, Wilson and Akre held themselves up as martyrs. It’s interesting how closely this parallels the behavior of other folks.

    Ragman’s summary of the case is simply completely, wrong, anyway.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  67. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

    JD (448fa8)

  68. If there were no doublestandards, they would have none at all;

    http://minx.cc/?post=327023

    narciso (87e966)

  69. Having double standards means they have twice as many as the rest of us!

    Right?

    Icy (cbf9f2)

  70. Libtards live in a complete ECHO CHAMBER. They believe the nonsense that they want to believe.
    If the LIBTARD media had ANY HONESTY or ANY INTELLECTUAL CURIOUSITY, JEREMIAH WRIGHT would have finished COMRADE JUG EARS political career.
    Obama is going to be SHI+CANNED.. And I will laugh for weeks on end. Commies be afraid.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  71. Good to see you around, Scott. How they hanging?

    Low. 😉

    BTW, shoot me an e-mail if you’ll be free Wednesday or Thursday evening. I should be in town with the GF, and there is likely to be a bit of a gathering. Not entirely sure of the when (or where) it’ll be, but drop me a line.

    Rest of the Chicago crew should do likewise.

    I agree it is nice to hear from Scott. All I ever hear about him lately is how he wishes bear rape on people

    Eh, more recently I’ve taken to asking if people f*ck puppies.

    Obvious satire that makes people scream about libel amuses me greatly…

    That Roy guy really doesn’t have much of a sense of humor.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  72. Dustin left out so many key elements of the story – I think the Fox producers coordinated with industry to change the segment so it wouldn’t suggest they were selling unhealthy milk. Then, lawyers for the biggest networks all got together to support Fox to ensure the ruling left them with the greatest latitude possible for “free speech”. The milk industry successfully prevented the public from hearing about use of bovine growth hormones and the media industry successfully prevented the court from allowing reporters to one-up their bosses when they claim the facts on on their side.

    the ragman (5c9853)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9500 secs.