re: Patel suing The Atlantic

Good Lord.

And I bet you still believe Muh Russia.


I can’t imagine a grown man clutching their pearls over another man enjoying beer.

And that means what as it applies to this suit ? The Atlantic doesn't have to be fair or balanced in their approach or even reporting. Same rules apply to Breitbart and publications on the right.

quote:

---

The Atlantic doesn't have to be fair or balanced in their approach or even reporting.

---

You seem excited about this. Neither the Atlantic, nor any media platform, has the right to deliberately, dishonestly malign a target. That is what may have happened here. I don't claim to know.

If it did though, would you celebrate that? I'm just not sure what your point is with this continued droning about what 'The Atlantic' doesn't have to do. They put out a deliberately damaging story about Patel. They rushed it to press before he had a chance to clear up actual facts. If the story is completely fabricated, WTF would you expect Patel to do?

You seem to act like the suit is frivolous, or stupid, or a waist of time. If the Atlantic account is a complete fabrication, and you were Kash, apparently you would be satisfied to cuckold yourself to the Atlantic. Fortunately, some folks simply aren't built that way.

I'm saying it doesn't matter if it turns out to be a fabrication. If the writer did not know it was all bullshite, The Atlantic is in the clear.

If I hear a story from 3 sources and it says the same thing, as a reporter I am shielded, especially if the subject was a public figure. Patel would have to prove that the article was published with knowledge of their falsity or with total disregard for the truth, NOT that they were false or negligent. This hinges on whether or not at the time of publishing the writer knew it was all bullshite. The writer is entitled to use anonymous sources provided that the editor knows the identity of the sources and the sources are of value like someone high in the Bureau. It's about the reporter and if she knew that the evidence being supplied was false. If she knew it was indeed false then Patel could claim actual malice. It's a very high bar to clear. Key word here is Knowledge. How Patel were to prove foreknowledge of the writer knowing these accusations were fake is his burden not the writer. If she in good faith claims it is all true, her editor testifies that they have knowledge of the sources, she is in the clear . It all satisfies Sullivan.

It would be cheaper and smarter for Patel to let this all die off. Two weeks from the article's release and no one would remember what was said. He ought to say, " Yep, I had to delay a scheduled meeting that day or those days, something else was more important." Atlantic sells the story, Fitzgerald gets her 15 minutes of fame and then everyone forgets it. Fighting it, and law suits just becomes problematic for the plaintiff than the defendant.

This is not like the Sandman case. The kid was minding his own business and he was a private citizen plus the context was there all along. CNN was guilty of presenting a known falsity before airing it . They knew.....and the kid was a private citizen. Private citizen is key there as well.