Oh, they’d write a hit piece, sure, but it would be much more precise: every detail cross-checked
Can you clarify what you mean by cross-checked here?
I know of multiple hit-pieces written about people close to me, and it has never been the case that major newspapers cross-checked facts with the person accused, and they often got substantial facts wrong, so I am not sure what kind of cross-checking you are talking about (and how it’s supposed to compare with the kind of fact-checking that Ben did in his post).
If large newspapers get specific factual points wrong they can and should be sued for libel. Partially as a consequence, when making accusations against people they are generally careful to stick within the bounds of the technically true even if uncharitably framed.
This is one reason, despite the distaste towards them in this community, I will not disavow libel suits as error-correcting mechanisms: they are a strong motivator for newspapers and one every journalist keeps in mind. Trust is a currency. Corrections are seen as stains on papers, retractions more so, losing lawsuits worst of all.
When I say “cross-checked” I don’t necessarily mean “checked with the accused”—although that comes into it—but verified with hard, unambiguous evidence. Not every paper keeps a high evidentiary standard, but the NYT—despite its many faults—does.
EDIT: for those who doubt this—keep an eye on how many conservatives still cite data presented by the NYT to make their points. It has clear biases in structure, presentation, and style of content, but its overall production value is unusually high. Its preeminence in the news world is not a coincidence, it having maintained that preeminence rather than being disrupted in the digital age is not a coincidence, and understanding the how and why of that is useful especially if you dislike it.
There’s an important qualifier here: it is extremely hard for a public figure (including a “limited-purpose public figure”) to win a libel suit in the United States. I would submit that most of the inhibitory effect of libel law in the U.S. as it relates to public figures comes from the fear of litigation, or the costs of litigation, rather than the risk of an actual-malice finding at trial. (Actual malice requires a showing that the speaker knew that the statement was false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Mere negligence isn’t enough.)
I bring that up because I don’t think libel law causes newspapers to insist that everything derogatory that they print about a person be “verified with hard, unambiguous evidence” unless you water that term down a lot.
Yeah, reflecting on the hit pieces that were New York Times related, I do believe the New York Times in-particular is quite diligent with its fact-checking. Though this is of course very far from universal among newspapers. See for example one of the recent Politico articles on EA and DC policy activism referring to the founder of Open Philanthropy as “Harold Karnofsky”, which is really one of the most basic fact-checking errors to make (his real name is Holden Karnofsky).
I don’t believe it’s libel suits that cause the difference here, given that other newspapers can get away with much lower standards while being similarly susceptible to libel suits. I think it’s a reputation that the New York Times is trying to maintain that is mostly enforced outside of the legal system.
It’s both. It’s important to remember that the primary effect of legal-system-as-backdrop isn’t “people get sued” but “people constrain their behavior because they know there could theoretically be legal consequences.” Every journalist knows what happened to Gawker, and the word “libel” is never terribly far from their minds.
The NYT is absolutely trying to maintain a reputation. Journalists as a whole are too, often less successfully. And for all of them, one of the greatest possible stains on that reputation would be a libel suit. There are many layers of error-correcting and error-checking mechanisms built atop the common-law foundation that come together into professional or institutional norms, but that doesn’t make the foundation meaningless.
The lessons of the Gawker case involve not publishing celebrity sex tapes, and not enraging vindictive billionaires, but I’m not sure what they have to do with defamation. The sex tape wasn’t false.
Totally fair; I should have clarified. The Gawker case was fresh on my mind as an incident of journalistic malpractice due to this conversation and is the most memorable example of lawsuits taking down a journalistic outlet. It’s a good example of the risks of irresponsible journalism in general but definitely wasn’t libel, and precision would have been better.
Can you clarify what you mean by cross-checked here?
I know of multiple hit-pieces written about people close to me, and it has never been the case that major newspapers cross-checked facts with the person accused, and they often got substantial facts wrong, so I am not sure what kind of cross-checking you are talking about (and how it’s supposed to compare with the kind of fact-checking that Ben did in his post).
If large newspapers get specific factual points wrong they can and should be sued for libel. Partially as a consequence, when making accusations against people they are generally careful to stick within the bounds of the technically true even if uncharitably framed.
This is one reason, despite the distaste towards them in this community, I will not disavow libel suits as error-correcting mechanisms: they are a strong motivator for newspapers and one every journalist keeps in mind. Trust is a currency. Corrections are seen as stains on papers, retractions more so, losing lawsuits worst of all.
When I say “cross-checked” I don’t necessarily mean “checked with the accused”—although that comes into it—but verified with hard, unambiguous evidence. Not every paper keeps a high evidentiary standard, but the NYT—despite its many faults—does.
EDIT: for those who doubt this—keep an eye on how many conservatives still cite data presented by the NYT to make their points. It has clear biases in structure, presentation, and style of content, but its overall production value is unusually high. Its preeminence in the news world is not a coincidence, it having maintained that preeminence rather than being disrupted in the digital age is not a coincidence, and understanding the how and why of that is useful especially if you dislike it.
There’s an important qualifier here: it is extremely hard for a public figure (including a “limited-purpose public figure”) to win a libel suit in the United States. I would submit that most of the inhibitory effect of libel law in the U.S. as it relates to public figures comes from the fear of litigation, or the costs of litigation, rather than the risk of an actual-malice finding at trial. (Actual malice requires a showing that the speaker knew that the statement was false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Mere negligence isn’t enough.)
I bring that up because I don’t think libel law causes newspapers to insist that everything derogatory that they print about a person be “verified with hard, unambiguous evidence” unless you water that term down a lot.
Yeah, reflecting on the hit pieces that were New York Times related, I do believe the New York Times in-particular is quite diligent with its fact-checking. Though this is of course very far from universal among newspapers. See for example one of the recent Politico articles on EA and DC policy activism referring to the founder of Open Philanthropy as “Harold Karnofsky”, which is really one of the most basic fact-checking errors to make (his real name is Holden Karnofsky).
I don’t believe it’s libel suits that cause the difference here, given that other newspapers can get away with much lower standards while being similarly susceptible to libel suits. I think it’s a reputation that the New York Times is trying to maintain that is mostly enforced outside of the legal system.
It’s both. It’s important to remember that the primary effect of legal-system-as-backdrop isn’t “people get sued” but “people constrain their behavior because they know there could theoretically be legal consequences.” Every journalist knows what happened to Gawker, and the word “libel” is never terribly far from their minds.
The NYT is absolutely trying to maintain a reputation. Journalists as a whole are too, often less successfully. And for all of them, one of the greatest possible stains on that reputation would be a libel suit. There are many layers of error-correcting and error-checking mechanisms built atop the common-law foundation that come together into professional or institutional norms, but that doesn’t make the foundation meaningless.
Wasn’t the Gawker suit for invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress? It involved a suit by a third-tier celebrity over a leaked sex tape, financed by a billionaire with a major grudge against Gawker.
The lessons of the Gawker case involve not publishing celebrity sex tapes, and not enraging vindictive billionaires, but I’m not sure what they have to do with defamation. The sex tape wasn’t false.
Totally fair; I should have clarified. The Gawker case was fresh on my mind as an incident of journalistic malpractice due to this conversation and is the most memorable example of lawsuits taking down a journalistic outlet. It’s a good example of the risks of irresponsible journalism in general but definitely wasn’t libel, and precision would have been better.