While it has received little coverage in the mainstream media, the conservative group Project Veritas won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach. In a 16-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood ruled against the newspaper’s motion to dismiss and found that Project Veritas had shown sufficient evidence that the New York Times might have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu. The decision will allow the Project access to discovery which can be extremely difficult for a news organization.
The case came out of the highly divisive period of the civil rights movement. The New York Times had run an advertisement referring to abuses of civil rights marchers and the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. seven times. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued for defamation and won under Alabama law. He was awarded $500,000 — a huge judgment for the time. Sullivan’s lawsuit was one of a number of civil actions brought under state laws that targeted Northern media covering the violence against freedom marchers. The judgments represented a viable threat to both media and average citizens in criticizing our politicians.
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. The status imposes the higher standard first imposed in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, requiring a showing of “actual malice” where media had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.
In this case, Astor and Hsu were accused of libeling Project Veritas by stating their opinions as fact in the articles on video clips that purportedly showed illegal voting practices by campaign workers for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). One article by Astor on Sept. 29 was titled “Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say,” and reported how academic researchers found the video to be part of a “concerted disinformation campaign.” The article describes the project’s work as “deceptive.” Hsu followed up a month later with a story titled “Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation” that again quoted academic experts in describing the work as “deceptive” and part of a “propaganda feedback loop.” Other articles follow a similar narrative.
The opinion is interesting because it calls out the New York Times for blurring the line between opinion and fact. It is a common complaint as major news media yield to the “echo chamber” model of journalism — appealing to the bias of readers or viewers in offering slanted coverage. The court calls out the newspaper for such blurring including this excerpt:
In a similar cycle, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by the conservative activist James O’Keefe. The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally (NYSCEF#8 and #9)
The issue is whether Project Veritas should be given a chance to prove it case and the court found that it should:
Actionable assertions of fact are tightly intertwined with what defendants now characterize as opinion. In part, Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as “deceptive,” “false,” and “without evidence” were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false. However, if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion. The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video “deceptive”, but the dictionary definitions of “disinformation” and “deceptive” provided by defendants’ counsel (NYSCEF doc 14 at footnote 29), certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim. Likewise, Defendants now appear to assert that the promotion of the video was where the deception was (Astor affidavit NYSCEF doc 85, at paragraphs 8-9; Hsu affidavit NYSCEF doc 86 at paragraphs 7-8; Memorandum of Law NYSCEF doc 14, at pages 7-8, 11-12, 23, 28). But there is a difference between viewing a disappointing “fight of the century” and reporting that it was not worth the Pay per-View fee or did not live up to the hype, and reporting to the public that Pay-per-View knowingly marketed a fight that was fixed. Plaintiff is entitled to try to establish whether NYT’s writers were purposely and/or recklessly inaccurate, or whether they were inaccurate, sloppy, or something less.
Note that this is not a finding of actual malice but it will allow the Project to plunge into discovery, including depositions, and possible a trial.
The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times. The Second Circuit has played a significant role in this area as well due to its foundational 1975 opinion in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc. That case concerned a book My Life in the Mafia that accused the plaintiff, Robert L. Cardillo, of various crimes. Cardillo had a long record and was serving time in the federal penitentiary. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case because it “consider[ed] as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof.”
These are extremely rare rulings and, in my view, the use the defense in this case was a mistake. There is a tendency in litigation to throw everything at an opposing party and let the court sort it out. It may be cathartic but it can be costly. In this case, the newspaper likely lost credibility with the court and highlighted the alleged bias in claiming that this conservative investigative group has no reputation to lose. It is the type of claim that is highly unlikely to succeed but has a high likelihood of undermining other claims in the motion to dismiss.
In the end, the court finds that there is sufficient evidence of “actual malice” by The New York Times to proceed in the case:
The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden. The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant’s state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that Defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Veritas alleged actual malice by providing facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants’ alleged disregard for the truthfulness of its statements. Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, Veritas’ submissions were sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions, and further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues raised.
More of Turley’s paid partisan spin. All the Court did in this case was DENY A MOTION TO DISMISS. There was NO ruling on the merits, and, in fact, Project Veritas may well lose this lawsuit.
The Professor said that. No spin.
More of Turley’s paid partisan spin.
Spoken like a butthurt gobbler of disinformation.
JT acknowledged the ruling as: Note that this is not a finding of actual malice but it will allow the Project to plunge into discovery, including depositions, and possible a trial.
I think you said you were a lawyer. I don’t believe it.
Surviving a motion to dismiss is important to actual litigants.
I guess you are not aware that Mr. Turley is liberal law scholar at Georgetown.
He isn’t.
First, he teaches at George Washington U., not at Georgetown.
Second, he’s not currently liberal, as is clear from his columns.
Second, he’s not currently liberal, as is clear from his columns.
This is the point a rational person first checks to see if he’s dragging anchor, instead of thinking the rocks are on the move. In other words, you’re just narcissistic enough to believe JT has moved towards conservativism, instead of you moving away from liberalism. I’ve followed Turley for 10 years. He’s as liberal today as he was 10 years ago.
Olly– That’s what I think too. Turley hasn’t shifted but the foundations of Progressives have slid toward the deep oceans and they seem scarcely aware that they are about to be submerged in totalitarianism. Although some seem knowingly eager for it.
All they need to do is look at what the Democratic party stood for over the last 60 years and compare that with what the party stands for today. Today, JFK would be in the crosshairs of the radical progressives in the Democratic party.
Olly,
True. JFK would be cancelled and, probably, would be pro-Trump..
Last 60 years ?
You can go back to 2008 and find a completely different democratic party.
I didn’t say that he’d moved. I’ve only been reading his columns for about a year, so I don’t know whether he’s moved. All I did was note that he’s not currently a liberal.
You inferred something that wasn’t implied. That’s your problem, not mine.
All I did was note that he’s not currently a liberal.
Then your conclusion is that neo-liberalism has moved so far left that JT appears conservative. Got it.
You should give up trying to infer things from my statements, because you’re clearly sh*tty at it. I didn’t imply that he’s a conservative. Only in your bizarro world does “not liberal” = conservative.
😆 if he’s not liberal and he’s not conservative, then surely you’ve concluded he fits somewhere along the ideological spectrum. What in your opinion best describes where JT fits other than not liberal?
Seems pretty centrist to me.
So not Liberal and not Conservative, but Centrist. So Liberals and Conservatives cannot be Centrists?
Alrighty then.
On the ideological spectrum, I place centrists in between liberals and conservatives. You don’t?
He is center left.
JT is a 60’s liberal.
He is not part of todays illiberal left.
Actually one can be both conservative and liberal.
Liberal is someone who prizes individual liberty.
conservative is one who beleive that existing systems that have worked – even imperfectly for centuries should not be cast aside for new ideas without compelling evidence that the new will work better than the old.
These are not incompatible
Most libertarians are both liberal and conservative.
There are two liberals. Buckley defined the Liberal (capital L) in the progressive camp and the liberal as a classical liberal.
With respect to Buckley – “Liberals” barely exist anymore and they never were progressive.
The Far left at Berkeley in the 60’s fought FOR free speech, and individual liberty.
The Far Left today is Orwellian.
They are thousands of miles apart
“With respect to Buckley – “Liberals” barely exist anymore and they never were progressive.”
The capital L was Buckley’s way of distinguishing the progressive L from the classical liberal small l
In Buckleys time Big L liberals – were the people like Turley and Derschowitz – they were NOT progressives.
We think of Kennedy as Liberal – or McGovern. They are reactionaries compared to Bernie, Biden and Warren.
Buckley’s Liberals were NOT progressive in todays terms.
“Buckley’s Liberals were NOT progressive in todays terms.”
John, Buckley is dead so we have to understand what he said based on when he made the statement not in today’s terms. My understanding is he and many others watched the name changes for what we call the Democrat or the left. They were progressives a term that became tainted so there was a gradual shift to the term Liberal. The Liberal was not the classical liberal. My recollection is that to distinguish the two Buckley called the leftist Democrat of the day a Liberal (like a proper name with a capital L) rather than the liberal (classical liberals with a small l)
There is little debate here.
MY point is that Liberal in the 20th century and Liberal TODAY does not mean anything close to the same thing.
I will not even use the term Liberal for the modern left.
The Modern left is NOT liberal or Liberal.
Turley is Liberal – but is being driven to liberal.
Derschowitz is Liberal – being driven towards liberal.
We are in the midst of a massive political realignment.
Trump was one of the first to recognize this, that is how he won in 2016.
And how he probably won in 2020.
And why democrats are in serious trouble long term.
Currently centrists are trying to sort things out.
But a massive amount of propaganda is being used to persuade those in the center that the modern left is NOT extreme and that the modern right is Extreme.
The current censorship, cancelling and political correctness are CRITICAL.
They are important to keeping a center that is not supportive of leftist values from grasping that the modern right is MODERATE.
There are less KKK members in the US than Antifa in portland – yet Biden has removed Antifa from the watchlists and is scouring the country for white supremecists.
The left is DELIBERATELY trying to make race relations WORSE – and they MAY even succeed.
Jan. 6th should (and did) terrify the left. not because of what DID happen, but what so obviously COULD have happened.
If a 10,000 armed but peaceful protestors showed up – the Capital police were NOT going to try to stop them, nor was the national guard.
And Congress was NOT going to certify the election.
Nor would that be a “crisis” – the declaration of independence specifically allows for that.
it is exactly how we are to deal with LAWLESS GOVERNMENT.
“MY point is that Liberal in the 20th century and Liberal TODAY does not mean anything close to the same thing.”
John, there is no debate on that point.
I only brought up my recollection of how Bill Buckley managed the problem of the word. He capitalized the Liberal of the day and used the small l to indicate the liberal or classical liberal that was stolen by the left.
I also corrected the statement: “Buckley’s Liberals were NOT progressive in todays terms”, by pointing out that today’s terms don’t apply to Buckley’s comment which was made many decades ago. He died over a decade ago.
neo-liberalism does not have a clear meaning.
Liberalism was supposed to, but the left has broken it.
As it does to all meaning.
1984 was supposed to be warning not a howto guide.
Of course he is a liberal.
It is the left that has become illiberal.
Anonymous the Stupid, your knowledge about these things is very poor which is not surprising.
When it comes to Turley’s positions on civil liberals he sounds like a classical liberal. On other policies he leans left.
“This is the point a rational person first checks to see if he’s dragging anchor, instead of thinking the rocks are on the move.”
A beautifully-turned phrase if I ever saw one, Olly. 🙂
Thank you Diogenes.
Oh yes, anyone who isn’t blatantly woke and partisan to the Democratic Party is not considered “liberal.” Turley supports free speech, so he’s definitely not a Democrat or woke. Thank all the gods!
Turley defends civil liberties from with side of the aisle but his policy objectives are in line with center left. He has always been that way though I could understand it if he disowned today’s Democrat Party. Today’s Democrat Party would cancel JFK.
SM
Hasn’t Prof. Turley’s stance been always more libertarian than liberal in the current sense of the term? One may not always agree with his opinion, but he has been incredibly consistent in his defense of free speech, the least of the liberals’ concerns.
Turley is an ACTUAL liberal – someone who prizes individual liberty highly.
Not a brain dead progressive.
WM
Like most thinking people, Turley seems to hold positions that are both to the right and to the left of center.
I suspect that you label his positions relative to your political beliefs.
Dear Natacha at 1:53. The court had the option to deny the continuance of the dispute. According to your logic the judge had no reason to allow a continuance. The judge just woke up that morning and decided it was case continuance day. You are correct in saying that the Project Veritas may lose the case but trying to lead us to the conclusion that the judge had no reason for allowing the case to continue is a mental gymnastic worthy of a gold metal at the Mental Gymnastics Olympics.
The question is, will Natacha faithfully report on the results of discovery if they don’t go her way or will those results take a deep dive into a memory hole reserved for the reality that she doesn’t want to face. Natacha if you faithfully report in the findings during discovery you may find a great victory. On the other hand, your reasoning may be found lacking. Regardless of the final outcome we know that you will present the facts of the case without personal bias. We will follow the case and will be anxiously awaiting your report.
.
Freakin’ Commies always deny the truth but never offer any sources, sources, facts and then try to twist nothing into their Truth. Aren’t you glad you voted for scum?
Constitutional Centrists
It was an incredibly important denial.
Further the oppinion is pretty damning.
It correctly notes that oppinions are only not defamatory when they are NOT presented as facts.
PV may have a venue problem – finding a sympathetic Jury in NY could be very difficult.
But beyond that they are in an excellent position.
I would not they have a very long track record of winning against those who come up against them.
I am not sure they are after a big award against NYT. Though one never knows with OKeeffe.
Getting discovery alone is a HUGE win for them.
That is like getting hidden camera video throughout the NYT – except the NYT itself is providing it.
And NYT as well as much of the media right now is extremely vulnerable right now.
That is what happens when you burn down journalistic ethics.
Again I do not know what Okeefe wants. But whatever he wants – he is tenacious and NYT screwed up by messing with him.
I am sure there is a video out there right now about this win.
I would also suggest this signals an understanding by the courts that we have a massive disinformation problem.
Though not directly related – expect similar decisions regarding social media giants.
What most people do not get is that Section 230 DMCA protection as it exists today – is a creation of the courts.
The plain reading of the law is that immunity is conditioned on providing a neutral public platform – the same free speech standard that applies to the government. SM can not today meet that standard.
That is where we are heading next.
The latest opinion as news. The slaying of Asians in Georgia is testament to white supremacy. Biden and Pelosi and their lap dogs in the press forgot to mention that the assailant killed two white people in his attack. Oh those two dead white people over there? Just get the New York Times and The Washington Post to cover up their bodies in their (opinion) er er “reporting”. If we appeal to our voters confirmation bias they won’t even notice that our (opinion) “reporting” is a lie and they will continue voting for us for another 100 years. As the actual evidence continues to be unraveled, the painting of anyone they disagree with as racist is exposed as being covered with the thinnest of thin cloth. It’s okay though. Morals are so old fashioned.
Yep … to the divisive among us, EVERYthing is racism, (whatever)phobia you can conjure up, sexism, etc. Parading around in Atlanta as if there were some evidence that 6 of the 8 murdered masseuses/spa workers were targeted because they were “asian” (or the newest D phobia AAPIs), was not done to mourn 8 deaths – but to talk and act as if the birthplace or heritage of 6 of the 8 caused the murders. What a joke, Ds and fake news and their toadies.
“but to talk and act as if the birthplace or heritage of 6 of the 8 caused the murders”
No, to address that their heritage is a factor in their murders. Just like 7 of 8 being women was a factor in their murders. Or do you deny that too, simply because 1 of the people murdered was a man?
“Ds and fake news and their toadies”
No more so than “Rs and fake news and their toadies.”
Anon, with your logic it must follow that the assailant also took into account the fact that the two white people were white and also deserved to die because they were white. The press and the Democrats have painted this crime as being motivated by white supremacy. So a white guy kills asian people because he is a white supremacist and he kills white people because he is a white supremacist. The left is fighting racism with all their racist might. Are you their bedfellow?
Sounds like you don’t understand my logic, TIT, and instead of asking me to clarify, you made false assumptions. This garbage that you project onto the people you debate is a form of trolling.
The shooter targeted Asian spas. The people who were murdered were disproportionately women and disproportionately Asian. They were not disproportionately white. According to one of the surviving witnesses, the shooter yelled, “I’m going to kill all Asians!” (https://www.kxan.com/news/atlanta-shootings-put-spotlight-on-surging-anti-asian-sentiment-in-america/)
I didn’t say anything about “white supremacy.” That’s your claim, not mine.
Related topic:. All this trash in the media about anti asian people in America. Some asians don’t like other asians. We have a family nearby which started in America when great grandma came over from Nanjing China in 1947. She had been raped many times by Japanese soldiers during WWII. She calls them “Japs”. Her offspring hate the Japanese and those in America of that origin.
Why doesn’t the tv media say that “hand job workers” got shot by their customer?
And provide some numbers about how many of the “hand job workers” in the Atlanta area are AAPIs? 75%?????
If allowing a suit to move forward is a “major victory,” then multiple people have won major victories against Trump, since he’s repeatedly lost his attempts to have defamation suits against him dismissed, such as the active suits by Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll.
Isn’t it interesting that those suits against Trump are trumpeted regularly on fascist, left-wing media but when that same media is exposed as un-American scum, there is no coverage of it.
I’m not familiar with any “fascist, left-wing media” and MSM isn’t “un-American scum”
Thanks for the Biden-level, Airforce One stairs faceplant. You’ve just validated the Left-wing propaganda allegation. Bwahahahaha!
How strange that you consider facts to be propaganda, Olly.
Was this a Pence-level Airforce Two stairs faceplant?
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1275500260618575872
Close, but good catch by Pence.
Anonymous the Stupid, this suit is going against the tide, not with it.
Status of current media.
The days of simple news are long gone. I do not think there is a single publication or news channel that simply reports the news. The CNN, NYT, WAPO, etc., of the ’90s, are long gone. Today news outlets are driven by ideology and opinion sprinkled with a little bit of news to cloak the story.
I do not know anything about Project Veritas; however, it is about time that news outlets face responsibilities for misinformation. From my vantage point, those loud voices that accuse other of fake-news and misinformation make accusations of their behavior.
Somehow it is fine for a reporter to alter and fabricate facts while accusing others of doing so. Add to this the cancel culture movement and the unsatiable intent of news outlets to direct public opinion based on their perception wants, ideology, and most importantly need. Do not forget that each and every one of these sources of information are for-profit businesses.
Even the local daily “news” broadcasts in Albuquerque parrot the NYT and AP and WashPost. Today, an entire page (not classed as editorial) was a reprint of an AP piece of fear-mongering called “how GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for 10s of millions of voters.” This, published in a state where anyone can register to vote with no ID whatsoever (with as many name/s they care to use) so long as there is a
USmail address provided to get absentee ballots; in NM, it’s so easy to vote OFTEN.
If much of the malice from the NYT and the rest of the MSM didn’t exist I believe the country would be in a much better position. Take note I am criticizing the malice, not honest reporting.
I get a kick out of the left claiming that Foc News are liars.
Now we see confirmation that the NYT and WaPo lied to their readers.
The difference is that the lefty publications make their readers pay for the privilege of being lied to.
And their readers like being lied to. Says something about the lefty mindset.
Rest assured, Fox also lies. Tucker Carlson recently won a defamation suit by having his lawyers argue that no one should take his opinions seriously, so it’s OK that Carlson lies. The judge agreed that no “reasonable viewer” would take Carlson seriously. Fox News argued that Carlson “cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect.”
Anonymous the Stupid, Tucker Carlson is not a news show. His is an opinion show where news is debated. As far as his opinions go I think he frequently makes that point. The question is malice etc., but that goes far beyond your level of intellect.
Professor Turley, can you make your teaching notes available to people on the blog? I suggest you make an audio of the classroom so that people can assess the questions asked and your answers like Professor Michael Sandel did in his book “Justice”.
Darren, can you ask this question of the professor and provide an answer?
I am ok with this suit resulting in a win for Veritas. Then using the same standards that Veritas used, Fox News and every other right wing media outlet will be sued out of existence for their lies.
Fox News from what I have seen hasn’t done what the NYTimes did. Fox News separates news from opinion. In particular Hannity is opinion not news so don’t get confused.
“The New York Times argued that there was nothing wrong with articles because the reporters were stating their opinions. Project Veritas noted that the paper’s own ethical policies prohibit news reporters from injecting their subjective opinions into news stories. “
This goes right to the point that most of the leftist thinkers on this blog said wasn’t happening. The NYTimes just admitted that their news is CORRUPTED.
That means that the news involving the Russia hoax and Ukraine was CORRUPTED.
That means that the fact checks used by the left are CORRUPTED.
That means the data coming from the left is CORRUPTED AND CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE.
The fascists thought that their abusive behavior could continue indefinitely but they are now seeing pushback. The number of retractions by the MSM to Project Veritas continues to rise. They are up to 334. https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/
The number of suits Project Veritas has won in a row is 7.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/legal-victories-pv/
Send money to Project Veritas, though they have won a lot of money their legal costs are very high. What they provide is videos of wrong doing and that pushes people to travel on a better path than they otherwise would. Along with that PV reveals solid proof in the words of those most involved in actions that are reprehensible.
Interesting article. I still believe that the standard regarding public figures/politicians isn’t invalid, but it might be needful of some tweaking, given the behaviour of left wing journos in the past few years. Of course, if they stuck to ‘the facts ma’am, just the facts”, there’d be no problem, would there?
“This trend toward advocacy journalism has led to polls showing record lows in terms of trust for the media”
Just the beginning. The MSM news org’s have gone so far off the beam that they’ve exceeded the scope of their safety net.
Letting clueless 20 somethings masquerade as so-called “Journalists” was a huge mistake. It reminds me of the foolishness Arthur Andersen and other Big 8 consulting firms engaged in with clueless 20 somethings pretending to be “Consultants” in the late 90’s. I remember sitting in meetings with these clueless clowns at Fortune 1000 companies, who knew nothing except memorized buzzwords folded into various memorized statements, and as soon as you clearly pointed that out to them they came apart at the seems.
PTL! Finally!
PTL stands for Pay The Lobbyist.
Before I went to law school, I considered journalism. I distinctly recall the professor distinguishing between investigative journalism which he said all journalism students should strive for and advocacy journalism which he despised. He said the combination between identity politics and advocacy journalism is the greatest threat to our democracy and threatened its existence. That was in the 1980’s. Seeing how the two have combined and where we are today, he was right.
“While it received little coverage in the mainstream media”, could it be that MSM makes a concerted effort to spread misinformation about anything right-leaning? No one fights harder for the truth having being incessantly maligned, than James O’Keefe, who is the founder of Project Veritas. They’ve tried to denigrate him (and PV), calling him a liar, activist and provocateur, but he’s like the Energizer bunny who ‘takes a licking and keeps on ticking.’ Remember the Planned Parenthood sale of baby part undercover videos, the damning Acorn videos, the New Jersey Teachers Union negotiations, and the CNN undercover hate-based videos of the Republicans and the Russians? Good on ya, and may the wind be forever at your back!
I think The New York Times had one thing right: They had an official policy that barred their reporters from injecting personal opinions in any news story.
The problem was that they had reporters who dismissed that policy in their “news” coverage.
If they wanted to express those opinions about the organization they were reporting on, they should hang up their reporters’ shoes and attempt to get a job as editorial columnists.
Interesting. Given Judge Silberman’s recent dissent, perhaps Sullivan is tottering a wee bit
Judge Silberman didn’t mince words. Of course the effect of one political party controlling the majority of the news the public gets will be mass denial that they are in fact receiving regular doses of misinformation. This ruling and Judge Silberman’s partial dissent are a win for our country.
Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-alleges-democrats-are-close-to-controlling-all-major-news-outlets_3742390.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email2&email=ourcivics@gmail.com&utm_campaign=mb-2021-03-21
Opinions aren’t facts, even when the person voicing the opinion is a judge.
Opinions aren’t facts, even when the person voicing the opinion is a judge.
You’re on a roll today, literally. Pick yourself up, check your knee for bruises and then recognize that judges write opinions based upon their view of the facts and evidence. Your opinion of his opinion is far less credible and with no Article III weight behind it.
Pick your own self up and recognize that the word “opinion” has more than one meaning, Olly, including both a person’s viewpoint and a judicial ruling.
Silberman’s judicial opinion (i.e., his ruling) is comprised of a mixture of facts and opinions (i.e., viewpoints). The portion you quoted was opinion, not fact.
His opinion (ruling) is a minority opinion. You don’t need to accept my opinion (viewpoint) about it. You can accept Judge Srinivasan’s and Judge Tatel’s majority opinion, which has Article III weight and more credibility than yours or Silberman’s.
Seeing such a rag as the NY slimes being hoisted by it’s own petard is comforting. May they get a big taste of what they have been dishing out and get it good and hard !.
Thank you!