Anyone Who Sues Me for Libel Can Post an Entry on This Blog
Nobody loves a scandal as much as I do, so I was sorry when a particularly juicy sounding one involving then presidential candidate John McCain and a female lobbyist disappeared from the headlines. Now, a year later, the New York Times has announced that a lawsuit from the woman in question has been settled with neither side paying damages or making retractions. The only ground given by the NYT appears to have been allowing her lawyers to have this Shakespeare-quoting public statement posted to the paper's website.
It's interesting to see how official websites for public institutions such as those for newspapers or congressional districts are now perceived as areas for potential spaces for shaming, face-saving statements, admissions of guilt, and other discursive compensations for perceived infractions of the social contract. But does this mean that the easiest way to write for the New York Times is to sue them for defamation?
It's interesting to see how official websites for public institutions such as those for newspapers or congressional districts are now perceived as areas for potential spaces for shaming, face-saving statements, admissions of guilt, and other discursive compensations for perceived infractions of the social contract. But does this mean that the easiest way to write for the New York Times is to sue them for defamation?
Labels: elections, print media
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home