Bad Journalism and Echo-Chamber References Lead to Libel at UVa
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
16 responses to “Bad Journalism and Echo-Chamber References Lead to Libel at UVa”
-
Looking at these examples of failing to report accurate information, we have to wonder just what is UVA teaching? The false CD statements are closer to propaganda than news or even op-eds.
Thank you for taking the time to pull out the actual statements for us.
-
Professional journalism codes of ethics are not likely taped to the wall at the student newspaper. In any event, it’s not necessarily ethics which guides journalism but professionalism and commercial competition. Fear of libel suits is only one post of guard rails. While a student newspaper may have a faculty adviser, reporting and writing stories are largely self-propelled and motivated.
-
I filled a wastebasket with applications UVA sent me unsolicited back in the early 70s. But my son loves the place (probably because he knew my opinion.)
Sorry, Sherlock, but you are describing the intellectual honesty of too many in both parties. We are seeing it on display as a bunch of old white guys are making themselves look like idiots trying to find some weak-ass excuse to vote against that judge, despite her obvious qualifications (and yes, she’s a former defense lawyer. The horror…..)
-
It is somewhat amazing that they find disqualifying the very legal skills to which, if truth were really known, most of them would need to avail themselves.
In retrospect, perhaps that is their intent. Keep her available or take her out of the game. Reminds me of a well heeled Hamptonite who in planning what he knew to be a contentious divorce, did an initial interview with the best facebiters in town.
-
-
-
Is this egregious enough to pierce Sullivan v NY Times (which needs to be scrapped – I don’t know for what, but lie on purpose and hide behind you can’t prove malice is no longer viable with a dishonest media)?
-
Not even close.
-
And that’s too bad. It encourages not just sloppy, but deceptive, journalism…
-
-
-
As they say, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
ormy favorite: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me, ” which the left has morphed into: “Words which hurt me can’t be allowed”
-
Pence who?
-
I’d assumed that Pence’s positions had been distorted beyond recognition, but I hadn’t actually checked the cited sources themselves. Thanks for doing this legwork. Nothing comes as a surprise.
-
And none of it would disqualify the students from jobs at CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or other partisan megaphones masquerading as news operations. Seriously. My opinion has sunk that low. If nothing else they can become climate alarmism propagandists.
-
-
No, he’s not. There are no good or evil men, just men.
-
Nice try but the critique does not rise to the level of libel wherein a public figure is involved. Bad reporting does not equal libel no matter how distorted the accuracy. Sarah Palin learned this lesson in her failure to hold the NY Times for libel. Now, if Alex Jones attacked Pence in Jones’ usual diatribes, there might be a case.
-
No, it’s still libel but doesn’t have the required “malice” to meet the standard when applying to a public figure.
Sarah Palin has nothing to do with this.
-
-
Captain Sherlock. With all due respect, you do not understand libel law or “bad journalism.” The Cavalier Daily was writing opinion. It was hardly libelous. They have every right to do so. Pence is obviously a public figure, which gives the CD a lot of room in which to move. According to New York Times Co vs. Sullivan (1964), there is a much wider field for criticism of public officials. If a public official wants to sue, he or she must prove “actual malice” which is very hard to do. Therefore Pence would have zero case here. Now if you think this is “bad journalism,” well that’s your opinion. I disagree and I have worked in this area for 48 years.
Virginia, however, has weak protections for journalists and lacks SLAPP laws protesting them from nuisance suits. If journalist gets hit with a ridiculous suit, he or she should be able to counter sue,.
-
First Amendment absolutism does not protect from deliberate lies.
In Sullivan v. New York Times (1964), the Supreme Court ruled:
“that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard to truth or falsity).”
I contend that the Cavalier Daily, had it not actually linked the “evidence” against Mr. Pence, would not be guilty of libel. But to reverse for purposes of smearing Mr. Pence the clear and unambiguous text of what he actually said in those linked passages is, to me, proof of actual malice. They demonstrated by linking the original passages that they had “knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard to truth or falsity”.
You will contend otherwise. That is your right. But “zero case”, I don’t agree.
-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.