Comments on: Vicki Iseman sues the NYT

By: Gary Gross

Gary Gross — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:02:06 +0000

One thing’s fairly certain: The NYTimes doesn’t have enough cash to buy her off.

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:51:44 +0000

Ms. Iseman is a public figure the same way Joe the Plumber is – because the scum sucking bottom feeders shoved them onto the national stage.

This is the same sort of chutzpah that has a supposedly sooper-sekrit spy mom do a photo spread in Vanity Fair.

My question is, when did we let the morons and criminals run the world?

By: forest hunter

forest hunter — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:30:31 +0000

Until and unless the rumorous lede’s come under constant pressure from people of character and an upstanding heirarchy, this is 21st-century journalism…..wonder how their sales would be if they just printed the truths, (no matter how distasteful for them) as opposed to this willy nilly narrative, consistent with that of sophomoric twits.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:08:15 +0000

It will be hard for Ms. Iseman to win the suit. Unfortunately, the way the system works, you’re a public figure when the media say you are. They stake you out, they ask you questions. Cazart!

Even if somehow she manages not to be defined as a public figure, there is still the matter that the Times needs, indeed, only to show that they accurately quoted the aides.

Of course, in order to do that, the Times will have to identify them by name, which will lead to protecting sources, threats of jail, journalists covering journalists, already–the whole thing.

I think the best Ms. Iseman can hope for is to win her case with the public, as Mr. Simon notes in the quote ST has provided. And, perhaps, that may be enough. Maybe at long last, and only five years too late, the stockholders will finally have had enough of Mr. Sulzberger and bring in a CEO who knows something about 21st-century journalism.

We shall see!

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:16:25 +0000

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University, said key to Iseman’s case will be how the court defines her — as a public figure or a private figure.

OK, quick show of hands….how many of you heard of Vicki Iseman before the NYT smear?

Nah, me neither.

She’s not an elected official, or a Hollywood celebrity, or has any other status that would make her a “public” figure. So the standard of proof should be lower and her case easier to prove.

the Times could be protected if it accurately quoted McCain’s former aides about their perceptions of his relationship with Iseman

There’s the rub. If McCain’s people were tossing around rumors, the NYT could feign innocence and say it was just quoting the aides – although a principled journalist (which excludes the NYT, I know) would make an effort to confirm the rumors before rushing to print them.

I’d love it if the aides were called on to testify and suddenly came down with a Clinton-like case of “I don’t recall” syndrome.