- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Patel suing The Atlantic
Posted on 4/20/26 at 3:58 pm to BTROleMisser
Posted on 4/20/26 at 3:58 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
No, but it sure as hell became much more prevalent.
Maybe. Would be interesting to study. I did see this from the Pew Research Center (which is rated as non-partisan/central) when Google'ing anonymous sources during the Biden Administration. Apparently at least during the Biden Administration's first 60 days, using anonymous sources for a story was uncommon enough for Pew to publish an article about it.
quote:
Roughly one-in-ten news stories about Joe Biden’s early days as president cited an anonymous or unnamed source, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of media coverage of the administration’s first 60 days. And fewer than 1% of the stories relied solely on anonymous sources.
Overall, 11% of news stories about Biden’s administration during his first two months in office relied on at least one anonymous source, according to the analysis, which examined stories produced by 25 major national newspaper websites, radio, cable and network broadcasts and websites, and digital outlets from Jan. 21 to March 21, 2021. The findings are part of a broader Pew Research Center content analysis of early Biden coverage and come amid debates in the news industry over the use of anonymous sources.
News outlets with right-leaning audiences were less likely than other outlets to incorporate anonymous sources into their coverage. Just 5% of their stories used such sources, compared with 12% of stories in outlets with mixed audiences and 13% in outlets with left-leaning audiences.
quote:
One concern about anonymous sources is that allowing someone to speak under the cloak of anonymity makes it more likely that a source may say something negative.
When it comes to assessments of the Biden administration, news stories that cited anonymous sources were modestly more negative than the broader sample of stories studied by the Center.
quote:
In an early 2020 Pew Research Center survey, most Americans said they see some value in the use of anonymous sources, but only to a limited degree. Roughly two-in-ten U.S. adults (18%) said the use of such sources is never acceptable, and 15% said it is always acceptable, while the majority (67%) said anonymous sources are appropriate in “special cases.”
In that survey, 68% of Americans said anonymous sources in a story had a great deal of (21%) or some (47%) influence on how they evaluated a story’s credibility.
Many journalists argue that the use of anonymous sources can at times be essential and necessary, particularly in investigative journalism. But many within the industry share the public’s concern over when the use of such sources is justified, and many media organizations have established standards and rules on that subject.
LINK
Very interesting it stated right wing type outlets were less likely to use anonymous sources, which I'm assuming included stories about the Biden Administration.
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 4:00 pm
1
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:00 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
He doesn't need to. As a public figure the threshold for Patel to clear for libel is incredibly high.
Actual malice isn’t that high of a standard.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:00 pm to gumbeaux
TDS is real
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:31 pm to BBONDS25
For a public figure? You would have high bar to prove that The Atlantic was operating in reckless disregard for the truth. You would have to prove that it was damaging and that there was knowledge of the absolute falsehood of the claim. Mere malice is not enough when dealing with the press and public figures of which Patel certainly qualifies as FBI Director. You should read up on New York Times, Co v. Sullivan.
Patel would have to prove that The Atlantic knew it was an outright falsehood. Patel can proceed, but like someone said, as plaintiff discovery would be a real bitch.
Come on Counselor, this is easy Con Law stuff. Unless Patel has a sugarcdaddy with enough funds to push this to a trial he would no doubt, lose it's a semi quixotic activity only designed to bleed and force a settlement for a fraction of the damages sought as a best case outcome of the strategy. The worst case it goes to court and Patel's lawyer ultimately have their asses handed to them.
Patel would have to prove that The Atlantic knew it was an outright falsehood. Patel can proceed, but like someone said, as plaintiff discovery would be a real bitch.
Come on Counselor, this is easy Con Law stuff. Unless Patel has a sugarcdaddy with enough funds to push this to a trial he would no doubt, lose it's a semi quixotic activity only designed to bleed and force a settlement for a fraction of the damages sought as a best case outcome of the strategy. The worst case it goes to court and Patel's lawyer ultimately have their asses handed to them.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:36 pm to TFH
quote:That's going to be interesting. Someone is lying, and I'm no sure who.
Patel suing The Atlantic
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:38 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
Remember when Biden's cabinet didn't meet for about a year?
And when they did meet, it was headed up Whoopie's favorite candidate for US Surgeon general and the "smartest man Joe knows"
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Someone is lying, and I'm no sure who.
I haven’t read the article(F ‘em) but I’m guessing they were smart enough to use language that shields them. It’ll be interesting to see how the court feels about it….language loopholes should not allow media to say whatever they want
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:42 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
For a public figure? You would have high bar to prove that The Atlantic was operating in reckless disregard for the truth. You would have to prove that it was damaging and that there was knowledge of the absolute falsehood of the claim.
Here’s a photo of Ghislaine looking real cozy with Laurene Powell Jobs (Steve Job’s widow) founder and president of Emerson Collective, lead investor and chair of The Atlantic
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:45 pm to TFH
quote:
language loopholes should not allow media to say whatever they want
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:45 pm to KiwiHead
quote:Perhaps, not. Patel could win in a situation where he was innocent, told the Atlantic so, and said he just needed a day or two to run down the dates Atlantic sources claimed were in play to prove the sources were lying.
Patel would have to prove that The Atlantic knew it was an outright falsehood.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:46 pm to TFH
quote:
AwakenedOutlaw
We're to the part of the Kash/Atlantic story where their media comrades cut bait and walk away.
Leaving them hanging out to dry, as it were.
Proving yet again that there is no honor amongst thieves
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
For @MorningWire today I spoke to on-the-record sources like @DissidentClint who have worked very closely with Patel and say they have never seen him abuse alcohol.
They further told me that, though they are the obvious people that Fitzpatrick should have contacted for comment, they never heard from her.
Now, @Reuters also says they have been unable to confirm the Atlantic’s claims.
And Reuters further notes that the Atlantic has inexplicably changed the title of the story from “Kash Patel's Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His ?Job” to “The FBI Director Is MIA.”
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:51 pm to Ailsa
...and that proves, what? Parel wants to open deflection he could try. But I suspect all he's looking for is a golden retirement parachute paid for by someone else.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 4:56 pm to KiwiHead
quote:You suspect he's guilty.
Parel wants to open deflection he could try. But I suspect
Why?
What factual basis do you have to claim "all he's looking for is a golden retirement parachute paid for by someone else"?
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:00 pm to NC_Tigah
Not that easy, stick to medical stuff. It's been 64 years since a political public figure won a libel case and that verdict was overturned by SCOTUS.
I like the Easter Bunny too, but he ain't real.
I like the Easter Bunny too, but he ain't real.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:06 pm to riverdiver
quote:
Boasberg just did a little throat spray, he’s warming up his voice to shoot it down
I can hear it now... No Standing
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:08 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
...and that proves, what? Parel wants to open deflection he could try.
A lawsuit opens the door to "discovery"...what will we find out?
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You suspect he's guilty. Why?
He’s cheering for the Atlantic to get away with it. They have a network of “anonymous sources” who will say whatever needs to be said to push a narrative which can’t be proven or disproven.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:14 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Not that easy, stick to medical stuff. It's been 64 years since a political public figure won a libel case and that verdict was overturned by SCOTUS. I like the Easter Bunny too, but he ain't real.
Cardi B won one in 2022. Stick to whatever it is you do.
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:17 pm to NC_Tigah
He's looking for a golden parachute because it's almost impossible for a public figure to prove that the writer of the story had a reckless disregard for the truth as was knowingly publishing outright falsehoods.
It's not whether I would think he's guilty of being a drunk. But what I see as the game being played. Why, do you think it's possibly true? Because in libel suits the truth is secondary to the intent overall and it is OK if the intent was malicious, so long as the person publishing it did not knowingly publish a false hood. If one of The Atlantic's sources would excuse the shielding and say, yep he was drunk on the job then the Atlantic wins. Two people release the Atlantic, then Patel better learn to like working an extra job to pay his legal bills to HIS lawyer.
He's suing trying to affect a settlement. He would do better to withdraw and leave it alone. He has a better chance of scaling El Capitan in high crosswinds on a free climb during a torrential rain storm.
It's not whether I would think he's guilty of being a drunk. But what I see as the game being played. Why, do you think it's possibly true? Because in libel suits the truth is secondary to the intent overall and it is OK if the intent was malicious, so long as the person publishing it did not knowingly publish a false hood. If one of The Atlantic's sources would excuse the shielding and say, yep he was drunk on the job then the Atlantic wins. Two people release the Atlantic, then Patel better learn to like working an extra job to pay his legal bills to HIS lawyer.
He's suing trying to affect a settlement. He would do better to withdraw and leave it alone. He has a better chance of scaling El Capitan in high crosswinds on a free climb during a torrential rain storm.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 5:17 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Patel would have to prove that The Atlantic knew it was an outright falsehood.
Nope. That’s one way to prove actual malice. Reckless disregard for the truth also satisfies the standard. Stick to whatever it is you do.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News