OPINION:
The New York Times, the Gray Lady of journalism, the supposed bastion of reputable news reporting and standard bearer for the rest of the media, just put in a defense to Sarah Palin’s claim of defamation, and it went like this: Oopsie.
Hmm. A bit disingenuous — yes?
“There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” said the paper’s attorney, David Schultz, in federal court in Manhattan to defend the paper from Palin’s accusations.
Well. Well, well and well again. It’s hard to say which would be worse — a defamation, or the newspaper’s admission of ignorance of such a well-known fact.
Palin’s claim to defamation fame doesn’t exactly involve a bit of news that was hidden beneath a rock.
Here’s what her suit is about: Palin, former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, is alleging the newspaper knew before it went to print with its June 14 editorial that there was no clear link between Palin’s PAC and the 2011 mass shooting by Jared Lee Loughner. Among Loughner’s victims was then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, a Democrat. The New York Times raised the incident in its June editorial as part of its coverage of the anti-Donald Trump-driven shooting of the Republicans at an Alexandria, Virginia, ballpark — to make the case that conservatives actually fuel the violence with radical rhetoric, a la Loughner v. Giffords.
But here’s the factual part — the point The New York Times curiously omitted: It was widely reported in the aftermath of that 2011 incident that Loughner targeted Giffords because he had a thing for her, and was stalking her.
No politics involved.
The New York Times, however, left that lil’l bit out, and instead, wrote this: “Was this [June 2017] attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding … Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. Conservatives and right-wing media were quick [in June] to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
The New York Times, facing concerted fire from scores of readers who reminded Loughner was a schizophrenic, issued a correction that pulled back from the PAC-brings-violence link.
“In fact,” the newspaper wrote in its June 16 correction, “no such link was established.”
Palin, however, frustrated with her own long-running battles with a biased press, sued, accusing the paper of purposeful defamation.
The New York Times was mostly mum on the suit, saying only it would vigorously defend its staff. Friday, however, it claimed the ignorance defense — something Palin’s attorneys were quick to condemn.
Likely, the New York Times will win in court. Palin has to prove malice — that the newspaper not only incorrectly reported the link but meant to do so in order to cause her harm and injury. And malice is tough to prove.
But outside of court, facing the tide of public opinion?
The New York Times has already lost. The newspaper has shown itself time and again to be possessed of Serious Bias Syndrome against conservatives, even having to admit, via a publisher note to readers, that its pro-Hillary Clinton, anti-Donald Trump campaign coverage could’ve used some balancing.
And it’s no secret the press on the left hates Palin.
But what’s worse now with this attorney statement — this New York Times-backed expression of “honest mistake” — is that it raises red flags on its staffers’ level of awareness of commonly reported news. Are New York Times editors and writers that clueless?
Are they blind to news that splashes across front pages everywhere?
Are they completely uninformed on the matters and issues of the day?
Schultz’s statement raises some interesting questions — none of which put The New York Times in a good news light.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.