Skip to main content

The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin I



Good news.  

On April 22, a jury in New York City ruled that the NYT had not defamed former Alaska Governor and one-time Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial. Today I will discuss this outcome in somewhat general terms.  Tomorrow I expect to dive into the particulars of the case.  

 This is the second time a jury has done so.  Another one reached the same result on the same facts three years ago. 

Palin refused to accept it, and did manage to get the verdict reversed, a new trial ordered, on appeal.

The safe bet is that she will appeal this one, too, on whatever grounds her attorneys can cook up.  But, having already had a second bite at the apple, the odds have become rather small that the appellate courts are going to give her a third. 

My guess is the Times has won this one.  

Cases like this are fascinating because they involve two well-funded opponents.  I am certain that Palin could raise as much money as she wanted to raise from an endless stream of Republican billionaires. I am also aware that the New York Times takes the burden of litigating such cases as a cost of doing business.  It is baked into their business model and, given the success of that model -- it was founded in 1851 and keep on ticking -- it will continue to fight when someone like Palin puts up her metaphorical dukes. 

"The failing New York Times" is one of The Donald's charming nicknames. But it plainly is not failing.  A year ago in the midst of covering a presidential campaign, its stock price was about $43. Right now, that number is above $50. 

Meanwhile how are other alternative investments doing?  Like, say, MyPillow? 

Personally I rarely read The New York Times. When I want hard news I go to the wire services.  When I want [informed] opinion ... well, it is easy to find. But the Times seems to be the organ that ticks off the worst people in public life today, so I am happy today for its victory. 

Palin is not only a legitimate target of the criticism the NYT doled out to her, but she remains a legitimate target of amusement, too.  I saw a toot recently that said, "Trump is so far up Putin's ass that he can see Sarah Palin's porch."

I suppose you have to have memories of Palin's VP run, and of the Saturday Night Live skits that engendered, to get that.  Sometimes it is worth while having a memory.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
22 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
Post a Comment
Read more