Closing arguments are taking place at the trial involving Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times:
Palin’s lawsuit concerns “America’s Lethal Politics,” a June 14, 2017, editorial addressing gun control and lamenting the increase in incendiary political rhetoric.
It incorrectly linked Palin to the January 2011 shooting in a Tucson, Arizona, parking lot where six people were killed and then-Democratic U.S. congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded.
[…]
Bennet inserted language that drew an incorrect connection between the Giffords shooting and a map from Palin’s political action committee that the editorial said put 20 Democrats, including Giffords, under crosshairs.“The link to political incitement was clear,” the editorial said. It was corrected the next morning.
The NY Times’ lawyer delivered his closing argument today, and the spin sure sounds familiar:
David Axelrod, a NYT attorney who works at Ballard Spahr, is now delivering his closing argument for the newspaper.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
Axelrod is tearing into how Palin's attorney, Ken Turkel, portrayed James Bennet's testimony regarding how he interpreted the word "incitement."
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
Axelrod says that Turkel left out key parts of Bennet's testimony, that he "slices and dices" the words to create an effect favorable to Palin's case.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
Another thing that Axelrod is seeking to address about Turkel's presentation is the number of pageviews that the editorial got. Axelrod points out that 47 percent of the traffic came AFTER the correction.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
There's a distinction between facts and theory/opinion, says Axelrod. It's an important case, he says, because it's about the freedom of the press.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
Recommended
If you’ve paid attention to the mainstream media these last few years, you know what’s next:
This case is about an "honest mistake" that was made by a media outlet, says Axelrod. "That's all this was," he says, noting it was made "very quickly"…an "honest mistake that caused James Bennet to stay up all night."
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 11, 2022
Does anybody believe that particular “honest mistake” would have happened if it involved a Democrat?
“Honest mistakes” always happen one way. https://t.co/QEwCLfsyTN
— a newsman (@a_newsman) February 11, 2022
Weird how all these mistakes go in one direction.
— Snow Miser (@Snow_Miser_) February 11, 2022
Every. Single. Time.
It was not an honest mistake. The article was printed long after the facts about the shooting were known.
— Big_A (@asomer) February 11, 2022
Law of averages would suggest there would be a few “honest mistakes” in favor of the right.
Given all these “honest mistakes” always go in one direction, there’s only one logical conclusion.
— TheFourthBranch (@The4ourthBranch) February 11, 2022
We’ll see what the jury decides.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member