Thursday, August 10, 2017


In a motion to dismiss Sara Palin's suit for libel, the New York Times argues:
For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement 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.
Which claims that it's unreasonable to expect that the editors at the Times actually read their own paper. Not entirely implausible as the first rule in propaganda is to never begin believing your own propaganda.

This might fly a bit higher if the claim were worded differently. For example: We claim that since everyone knows that the Times is a premier source of fake news, the Complainant should have recognized that the statements concerning her were deliberately false and thus were not to be taken seriously.

See? Now that I could almost believe. It would also help if the paper being sued was the Onion instead of the New York Times.

No comments: