Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?[/quote] If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc. I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures. But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter. [/quote] I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated. [/quote] Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL. These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth. [/quote] What are your guessing odds this gets to a jury?[/quote] Hmm, maybe 20%. It’s interesting for sure. The NYT has a fairly standard policy to fight every defamation case. The Ps will have to navigate the Times repeated efforts to get this thrown out on the law (fair report, anti Slapp etc) but from what I can see of Bryan Freedman, he is playing this very well so far and he may bring in extremely skilled P side defamation attorneys, so I suspect he can cross those hurdles, especially because with all this interest and publicity and an overall diminishment on people’s trust of ‘main stream media’, there will be pressure on the judge to allow this to move to a jury. The judge will also know these Ps will likely appeal any decisions he/she makes to get this thrown out. And once it gets to a jury, it’s really the P’s case to win. Juries are fickle, they decide who they like and don’t like, and they are not always great at applying legal standards (actual malice, etc). This case is so fascinating to me [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics