You Heard It Here First: NY Times Editors Deny Reading Their Own Newspaper

[Valin]

Power Line

John Hinderaker

August 10, 2017

 

Sarah Palin has sued the New York Times for defamation, on account of a Times editorial that falsely claimed there was a “clear” and “direct” causal connection between Palin’s PAC’s “targeting” of Gabrielle Giffords’ district and Jared Loughner’s murder of six people in Tucson. The paper now calls its smear of Palin an “honest mistake.”

I wrote here that Palin has a strong case, despite the extraordinary burden of proof imposed on public figures who sue for defamation. This is true, in part, because the Times’s own reporting debunked the idea that Palin had anything to do with Laughlin’s murders (which was a crazy idea in the first place). I wrote:

Ms. Palin can make a strong argument that the Times editorialists knew that their smear was a lie, based on reporting done by the Times itself. (The editorialists’ defense likely will have to be that they don’t read their own newspaper.)

That last observation was prophetic. The Times’s lawyers have moved to dismiss Palin’s case on the ground that her complaint fails to state a claim. This means that even if you assume everything in the complaint is true, she still doesn’t have a case. In response to that motion, the presiding judge, Jed Rakoff, has ordered an evidentiary hearing. You can read his order here. Judge Rakoff writes that whether Palin has sufficiently alleged actual malice is a “close question.” I disagree, I think her complaint is plainly sufficient. But Judge Rakoff continues:

[T]he Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statements of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them. This is information peculiarly within the knowledge of defendant; but on it arguably depends the reasonableness vel non of inferring actual malice.

So, as I predicted, the Times won’t admit that its editors read their own paper...........(Snip)