Washington Post admits they were totally wrong

[scheal]

Something all sane people already knew

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-lawsuit.html

Washington Post issues lengthy 'editor's note' admitting their initial coverage of the Covington Catholic controversy was flawed after they were hit with a $250million lawsuit by the student's family

[gwg77]

The Washington Post's Vice President for Communications Kristine Coratti Kelly had said: 'We are reviewing a copy of the lawsuit and we plan to mount a vigorous defense.'

"We acknowledge the fact that we made a huge mistake. But still, fukk that kid, we will still defend ourselves like it never happened."

[fitnessislife]

“Vigorous defense”, lol. They have no defense. They jumped to the wrong conclusion and did everything possible to slander the kid. They knew full well what they were doing.

[StoliFun]

"Every time a toilet flushes at a cabbage farm in Saskatchewan, a lawsuit like this is filed against us.

We will not be deterred." - WaPo spokesperson.

[chaunce54]

"Every time a toilet flushes at a cabbage farm in Saskatchewan, a lawsuit like this is filed against us.

We will not be deterred." - WaPo spokesperson.

Oh, going for the ol' red herring defense. That's a bold strategy Cotton...

[rampagefc77]

You can bet that the only reason they did this is because they were hit with a 250 million dollar lawsuit.

[wincel]

The lawsuit is outrageous in terms of the amount, but they will definitely settle and give him a few hundred thousand dollars. They definitely have lost reputation as a credible news source.

[backinthegymbro]

The lawsuit is outrageous in terms of the amount, but they will definitely settle and give him a few hundred thousand dollars. They definitely have lost reputation as a credible news source.

250 million is what jeff bezos paid to acquire the washington compost, that's why it is that amount.
Regardless, you should always sue higher for what you want, so you can settle on a lower amount. Hope he wins it all and continues to sue other news outlets as well.

[wincel]

250 million is what jeff bezos paid to acquire the washington compost, that's why it is that amount.
Regardless, you should always sue higher for what you want, so you can settle on a lower amount. Hope he wins it all and continues to sue other news outlets as well.

Maybe he will win, and he can buy the paper and get them to report news properly like Reuters.

[StoliFun]

Oh, going for the ol' red herring defense. That's a bold strategy Cotton...

Whatever you think this means, smart guy.

[Ikeman83]

Maybe he will win, and he can buy the paper and get them to report news properly like Reuters.

Can you imagine the Washington Post as a conservative paper?

Literally erect

[wincel]

Can you imagine the Washington Post as a conservative paper?

Literally erect

I said properly...meaning neither conservative nor liberal...

[MyLastSerenade]

I said properly...meaning neither conservative nor liberal...

Conservatively would be without a bias for Democrat or Republican narrative.

[Dave22reborn]

Wow, they actually admitted they were wrong? Well, there's a first time for everything.

Maybe they'll admit that they dropped the ball with the Smollet case?

[Bushmaster]

"Every time a toilet flushes at a cabbage farm in Saskatchewan, a lawsuit like this is filed against us.

We will not be deterred." - WaPo spokesperson.

I like how they always write lengthy articles explaining how they fuked up whenever those cabbage farm toilets flush too. Nothing different about this lawsuit at all.

[Mark1T]

Boy just won $50 Million.

Just, like, that.

[HoganIsGOAT]

I mean, it’s the propaganda arm of the CIA so...the truth isn’t always their goal.

[sandaltan]

suing publishers isnt without risk. if the kid loses on an anti-slapp motion, not only is his suit dismissed but he owe's wapo's attorney fees. the issue centers around whether or not the kid was a public figure (i think so) and whether wapo acted with "actual malice" - a complicated term of art.

[scheal]

suing publishers isnt without risk. if the kid loses on an anti-slapp motion, not only is his suit dismissed but he owe's wapo's attorney fees. the issue centers around whether or not the kid was a public figure (i think so) and whether wapo acted with "actual malice" - a complicated term of art.

Of course there was malice intended. Everything since Trump won has liberal malice written all over it

[DuracellBunny]

Of course there was malice intended. Everything since Trump won has liberal malice written all over it

"Actual malice" includes a reckless disregard for the truth. I'd assume the kid's lawyers will be arguing that WaPo didn't target the kid and set out to destroy his life, but that they were so hell bent on telling a particular narrative that they recklessly disregarded anything that didn't fit the narrative.

It isn't about them knowing that what they said was a lie, but rather them not caring whether it was a lie. I'm not a lawyer (but neither are most of the people on here that claim to be one), but I would imagine that the public figure angle would actually help the kid in this case. Him being recorded and said recordings being widely disseminated, would have provided WaPo with ample opportunities to do due diligence on the story before publishing, due to the videos being so easily available.

I would imagine the same argument would apply to broadcast media. If they were found to have longer recordings that showed the kid in a good/neutral light, but edited down or only broadcast clips that showed him in a negative light, then you are in the territory of malice.

[sandaltan]

Of course there was malice intended. Everything since Trump won has liberal malice written all over it

lol thats not what actual malice means in the legal world

[cashinout]

Odd since theres posters on this forum who never admitted WP was wrong

[sandaltan]

"Actual malice" includes a reckless disregard for the truth. I'd assume the kid's lawyers will be arguing that WaPo didn't target the kid and set out to destroy his life, but that they were so hell bent on telling a particular narrative that they recklessly disregarded anything that didn't fit the narrative.

It isn't about them knowing that what they said was a lie, but rather them not caring whether it was a lie. I'm not a lawyer (but neither are most of the people on here that claim to be one), but I would imagine that the public figure angle would actually help the kid in this case. Him being recorded and said recordings being widely disseminated, would have provided WaPo with ample opportunities to do due diligence on the story before publishing, due to the videos being so easily available.

I would imagine the same argument would apply to broadcast media. If they were found to have longer recordings that showed the kid in a good/neutral light, but edited down or only broadcast clips that showed him in a negative light, then you are in the territory of malice.

if the kid is a public figure its MUCH harder to prevail on a defamation claim

the kid is trying to say hes a private figure, and wapo will argue he's a public figure

if the kid is a public figure, he has to prove actual malice - and thats very difficult to prove

the 1A provides for freedom of the press, and the press has broad rights to publish on public figures or matters of public interest, PARTICULARLY political speech.

the kid was in public and he had no expectation of privacy. after it went viral, the public was clearly interested in the matter and the kid became a public figure

[soaponarope1]

The lawsuit is outrageous in terms of the amount, but they will definitely settle and give him a few hundred thousand dollars. They definitely have lost reputation as a credible news source.

Definitely. It's not like the story caused thousands of delusional people to threaten the kids safety and life or anything.

Not like these types of people have documented history of physically assaulting people who disagree with them or anything.

[rhadam]

Can you imagine the Washington Post as a conservative paper?

Literally erect

Lmao would be hilarious. I'd love to see more unbiased news reporting but turning in a leftist outlet to a right wing outlet would make my day.

[Travis99]

if the kid is a public figure its MUCH harder to prevail on a defamation claim

the kid is trying to say hes a private figure, and wapo will argue he's a public figure

if the kid is a public figure, he has to prove actual malice - and thats very difficult to prove

the 1A provides for freedom of the press, and the press has broad rights to publish on public figures or matters of public interest, PARTICULARLY political speech.

the kid was in public and he had no expectation of privacy. after it went viral, the public was clearly interested in the matter and the kid became a public figure

Are you really that stupid?

The kid was made into a public figure by this news coverage. Being in public doesn't make you a public figure.

[sandaltan]

Are you really that stupid?

The kid was made into a public figure by this news coverage. Being in public doesn't make you a public figure.

you have no idea what you're talking about, and you admitted the kid was made into a public figure by the news coverage

[Dave22reborn]

suing publishers isnt without risk. if the kid loses on an anti-slapp motion, not only is his suit dismissed but he owe's wapo's attorney fees. the issue centers around whether or not the kid was a public figure (i think so) and whether wapo acted with "actual malice" - a complicated term of art.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.....unless you get off on it?

[DuracellBunny]

Are you really that stupid?

The kid was made into a public figure by this news coverage. Being in public doesn't make you a public figure.

I don't think the public figure angle is really the issue here. What WaPo and numerous other celebs/media outlets did, was the equivalent of having a video of somebody saying "it's not as if I hate black people, that's a complete lie", editing it down to just the four words "I hate black people" and telling everybody that the person is a racist, on the basis of the edited clip, when they know the full clip shows something else.

Prove they had the full clip and you have a case.

[sandaltan]

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.....unless you get off on it?

I don't think the public figure angle is really the issue here. What WaPo and numerous other celebs/media outlets did, was the equivalent of having a video of somebody saying "it's not as if I hate black people, that's a complete lie", editing it down to just the four words "I hate black people" and telling everybody that the person is a racist, on the basis of the edited clip, when they know the full clip shows something else.

Prove they had the full clip and you have a case.

lol yeah a bunch of plebs telling me how the law works is super embarrassing for me