Back in June, Sarah Palin filed suit against the New York Times for publishing an op-ed tying her to the Gabby Giffords shooting. In an editorial inspired by the shooting attack on the House Republican baseball team, the Times editorial board had alleged that Palin had incited Jared Lee Loughner back in 2011, only later correcting the piece to read that “no connection to the shooting was ever established.”
A federal judge Tuesday dismissed former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's lawsuit against @NYTimes https://t.co/17hKKBkyso pic.twitter.com/AbBHWmhR1R
— POLITICO (@politico) August 29, 2017
On Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed Palin’s suit, writing that in the “rowdy” world of American political journalism, “mistakes will be made.”
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/902607462917955584
https://twitter.com/Rschrim/status/902607886857232384
They lied. They knew it wasn't true, and they published it anyway. https://t.co/QmXtqVSffF
— ?It's?Almost ⛄️Christmas? (@jtLOL) August 29, 2017
Well … the judge might be right about there being no malicious intent; whoever dropped in that tidbit about Palin probably remembered only the left-wing spin at the time, which was that a map depicting targeted electoral districts was responsible for inspiring Loughner’s shooting spree. That was the talking point, and the media made sure everyone was aware of it.
Knowing the scenario involving the map was fictional would have required the editorial writer to have, you know, read unbiased news reports, some of which the Times itself had run — something the paper admitted in arguing that the case should be dropped.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Kiner/status/902616481057398786
Apparently the NY Times does not read the NY Times or something: https://t.co/kBBX7niU5U
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) August 29, 2017
The judge obviously never heard of "once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." https://t.co/tA9Y3vanlz
— Doug Powers (@ThePowersThatBe) August 29, 2017
funny how our journalists always make the same kind of errors regarding the same kind of people. https://t.co/UiewUbfzqG
— The Milk Crone ? (@TheMilkCrone) August 29, 2017
Always funny to me when a business full of "intelligent" people like the NYT takes shelter behind "clueless, not malicious."#dumborevil? https://t.co/TXxEonAcy7
— L.A.Woman (@Arrowgeune) August 29, 2017
Governor @SarahPalinUSA should appeal this Clinton appointed Judge's backasswards dismissal to the highest court. An appeal will help #MAGA https://t.co/5gYHa9C5do
— THOMAS (@ThomasSSchmitz) August 29, 2017
How can they determine this without discovery and evidence 1st being presented? https://t.co/6EvKZLmn4G
— BakerSon 13inaDozen (@BakerSonPeekay) August 29, 2017
Seems weird to say there's no "plausible" basis for showing reckless disregard for falsity. Maybe there's not, but that seems unlikely. https://t.co/ukOj75qJjS
— Jacob Phillips (@lawrence15) August 29, 2017
Anyone blind to #NYTimes malice toward #SarahPalin is, well, blind. Absurd ruling. https://t.co/PGri6o2LK8
— Mark Davis (@MarkDavis) August 29, 2017
Even though it’s been dismissed, maybe Palin’s suit will motivate the Times to not make similar “mistakes” quite so often? Reporting just the facts could be a start.
* * *
Related:
‘Amazing’! NY Times’ presents mock-tastic argument for dismissal of Sarah Palin’s lawsuit https://t.co/kKnNull1gQ
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 10, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member