This is beyond hyperbole. It's a pretty clear-cut case of irresponsible journalism bordering on malice.
"Irresponsible journalism" isn't illegal and they would have to prove malice, which is what they hope to do with discovery.
Yes. They were too eager to get a story posted before everyone and their grandmothers find out about it through social media.
Competing with viral / misrepresented stories on social media without due diligence is ruining journalism.
"Ruining journalism" isn't illegal either. Even slander and libel laws don't exist to defend the honor/integrity of journalism. Without a smoking gun they are going to find it difficult to prove that the journalists knowingly published false information with malicious intent to defame.
So there should be no consequence for posting your picture along with a string of ruinous easily-disproven allegations?
The consequence is that they lost some public trust and goodwill. Went down a peg.
Is your claim that the Post knew the allegations were false at the time they published them or that they ignored obvious evidence of their falsity at the time of initial publication? If so, what evidence is there for this? If not, then no they should suffer exactly zero legal consequences for this as the first amendment protections of the press are by design extremely strong.
While I doubt the lawsuit will go all the way unless they find a smoking gun, discovery is where we might find one so I'm not dismissive of the suit itself... yet. It may also be that they have documentation of personal correspondence where they reached out to set the record straight and were disregarded, which could go a long way but they still need to show malice. I'm not going to assume the lawsuit is without merit just because we don't know yet.
The consequences they face are that fewer people will buy their news if they think they do a bad job of reporting, just as it should be.
Gah! You beat me to it.
The media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgment
Sure, but can they be held LEGALLY liable? Possibly, if they can show that the newspaper knowingly disregarded the truth with malicious intent. We don't see any evidence for that but... who knows what they have or what they'll dig up.
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.
Fortunately, they kinda do. Yes, "fortunately." I don't like what they're doing either but it is fortunate for our personal freedoms.
Regardless of their intentions, their direct actions resulting in defamation that was false. You should be responsible for those actions.
I'm sure you can find plenty of their news anchors talking smack about the kids directly, so we aren't just talking about a media article that they can retract/apologize for.
Not everything false is legally actionable. I once saw nightly news share an old wive's tale about daddy "long-legs," particularly the Harvestman, being "the most poisonous [sic] spider except the mouthparts are too small to bite you."
A) Not a spider
B) Not venomous
C) Biting would be irrelevant ("poison" is consumed or absorbed)
ZOMG... SUE!
Some dudes somewhere decided to reclassify Pluto without any legal backing and now they can sue anyone who ever reported it as a planet? Obviously not.
Truth vs. flasehood is not what makes it legally actionable.
problem is he's not a US lawyer and US law (and kentucky law, for that matter, because it's substantively a kentucky case, though with strong first amendment flair and federal procedure being used) isn't the same as quebec law. he's offering his non-expert opinion and people are treating it like he knows what he's talking about. he doesn't.
Well, it was news and he was right when he said months ago why he thought the reasons for the dismissal wouldn't hold up. Though he may not be a US lawyer he is definitely more familiar with the law than your average YouTuber regurgitating legal news without a law degree. He often discusses the differences between Canadian and US law and frequently states when he is unsure about something in US law, deferring to others who do. He's a quality source for some legal news.
Also, people weren't particularly treating him "like he knows what he's talking about." That's your own inference. Hurley posted it as a source for news that the lawsuit was back on. Would you prefer he linked to a WaPo article instead? I certainly wouldn't.
Actually, no. The guy has a strong right-wing bias as evidenced in this video (so what if the president tried to use US funding and his diplomatic powers to get info on a political rival??? Hunter Biden was getting money!!!)
He's full of shit and has a strong bias.
The Hunter Biden case had been closed a year before Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to have the prosecutor in question fired. Anyone who brings up and keeps repeating Hunter Biden's salary or Joe Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire the prosecutor and doesn't mention the proper timeline of events or that all of these have been investigated multiple times with absolutely no wrongdoing being found is acting, as he alleges, with extreme political bias.
His entire charge of political bias against Legal Eagle was that he omitted Hunter Biden's salary, but his own omissions are far more egregious.
So yeah, political hack.
He's undeniably moderate, but you found something you didn't agree with and then did exactly what HurleyBird characterized here:
.The word here is moderate. Unfortunately, there's too much extreme partisanship nowadays which leads to "if you aren't for us you're against us."
Perfect example.
You’re not. You’re obtusely rationalizing tabloid sensationalism to affirm a confirmation bias.
Freedom of the press does not place the press beyond reproach.
They don't have to be legally liable to suffer for their actions. They undeniably lost credibility. They clearly aren't beyond reproach.
Now you’re trying to move the goalposts. I have never once said the Post should not be criticized, just that attempting to sue them for defamation is wrong and against the Constitution.
Unless there's something we don't know, like evidence of the Post rejecting the family's correction and moving forward with the story anyway, which would totally justify the lawsuit up to this point (discovery to look for evidence of existing bias + malicious intent). If they don't find evidence of malicious bias to explain a provable rejection of the truth, then it dies in the courts.