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.
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.