Sarah Palin has lost to The New York Times.
Not once. But twice.
On Tuesday, a nine-person jury unanimously found that Palin did not prove the Times had defamed her in a 2017 editorial. And that came a day after the judge in the case said he was going to throw out the verdict no matter what the jury decided.
But it turns out, the jury saw the same thing that the judge did: Palin just couldn’t prove the Times acted with “actual malice” when it published a 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to a map circulated by Palin’s PAC that showed certain electoral districts under crosshairs.
As soon as the jury’s decision was announced on Tuesday, Judge Jed Rakoff told the jurors, “You decided the facts. I decided the law. It turns out they were both in agreement, in this case.”
So even though it would appear Tuesday’s verdict really didn’t matter — seeing as how the judge was going to toss it anyway — it actually kind of did.
As NPR’s David Folkenflik wrote, “Palin is believed likely to appeal. Rakoff wanted the verdict to be heard by the appellate court as well. And now, the jury's verdict for the Times arrays even steeper odds against Palin's success.”
That’s why many journalists and news outlets are breathing a sigh of relief today.
In a statement, Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech, said, “The press needs room to function and publish and have the flexibility to make some mistakes without fearing that it can face civil judgments for simple, honest mistakes.”
Palin’s attorneys have already indicated they will appeal.
In a statement, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said, “The New York Times welcomes today's verdict. It is a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors. It is gratifying that the jury and the judge understood the legal protections for the news media and our vital role in American society. We also want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations in a difficult area of the law.”
The New York Times’ Jeremy W. Peters wrote, “Ms. Palin’s lawyers may get another chance to argue why those protections should be pared back on appeal. Legal experts said that one avenue for asking an appeals court to reconsider the case is to ask that the courts revisit the broad manner in which the law defines a public figure.”
At the heart of all this is the landmark 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that set such a high bar for “actual malice” for prominent people.
As The Washington Post’s Elahe Izadi and Sarah Ellison wrote, “At the Supreme Court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have both signaled an openness to reviewing the 1964 precedent, raising concerns that rulings unfavorable to media organizations could expose them to a wave of costly litigation.”
The trial turned out to be a bit of an embarrassment for the Times editorial section and former editorial page editor James Bennet. What they did was sloppy and shoddy and, at least until they corrected their mistake, irresponsible. But the trial wasn’t disastrous because the Times scored not one, but two victories. And that was good news for journalists, too.
After the judge’s ruling, but before the jury verdict, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple wrote, “Through its process-heavy tedium, the trial brought into relief just the sort of journalism that deserves protection from crippling litigation. Here was a one-off claim in a hurried editorial that slimed a public figure. Granted, it perpetrated a gobsmacking falsehood for which the Times and Bennet are appropriately ashamed. But everyone who feeds off unsparing coverage of politicians and celebrities — a pretty healthy American plurality, we’d submit — should applaud the ruling. It’s a principle, after all, that props up your favorite media outlet, too.”
Allison Gollust resigns amid CNN controversy
Two weeks ago, Jeff Zucker stepped down as president of CNN after he failed to publicly reveal that he was in a relationship with one of his top executives — Allison Gollust, CNN’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer.
On Tuesday night, Gollust resigned as the whole situation became much messier.
Jason Kilar, the CEO of WarnerMedia (CNN’s parent company), sent an email to staff that said, “Earlier today, Allison Gollust resigned from CNN following the conclusion of the company’s investigation into issues associated with Chris Cuomo and former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Based on interviews of more than 40 individuals and a review of over 100,000 texts and emails, the investigation found violations of Company policies, including CNN's News Standards and Practices, by Jeff Zucker, Allison Gollust, and Chris Cuomo. We have the highest standards of journalistic integrity at CNN, and those rules must apply to everyone equally. Given the information provided to me in the investigation, I strongly believe we have taken the right actions and the right decisions have been made.”
He added, “I realize this news is troubling, disappointing, and frankly, painful to read. These are valid feelings many of you have.”
Chris Cuomo was fired in December for helping his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, battle multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. Chris Cuomo is fighting to get what money was left on his contract, which led to a CNN investigation.
Which is now leading to plenty of questions about all the relationships involving Zucker, Gollust and the Cuomo brothers.
In a statement to CNN’s Brian Stelter, Gollust said, “WarnerMedia's statement tonight is an attempt to retaliate against me and change the media narrative in the wake of their disastrous handling of the last two weeks. It is deeply disappointing that after spending the past nine years defending and upholding CNN's highest standards of journalistic integrity, I would be treated this way as I leave. But I do so with my head held high, knowing that I gave my heart and soul to working with the finest journalists in the world.”
This has become a CNN nightmare. Even before Gollust resigned, The New York Times had a detailed investigation from Emily Steel, Jodi Kantor, Michael M. Grynbaum, James B. Stewart and John Koblin. The story revealed even more details about problems at CNN. In it, the Times wrote, “More than 30 people familiar with the recent tumult … described the events and ethical violations that led to a leadership collapse at ‘the most trusted name in news.’”
Zucker had claimed that Chris Cuomo was fired because he had realized the extent to which Cuomo was helping his brother.
But The Wall Street Journal’s Ben Mullin tweeted Tuesday night that Chris Cuomo’s camp put out a statement that said, “It is clear this was never about an undisclosed relationship. As Mr. Cuomo has stated previously, Mr. Zucker and Ms. Gollust were not only entirely aware but fully supportive of what he was doing to help his brother. The still open question is when Warner Media is going to release the results of its investigation and explain its supposed basis for terminating Mr. Cuomo.”
Clearly, this story is long from being over.
A powerful project in Philadelphia
On July 4, 2021, The Philadelphia Inquirer launched “A More Perfect Union.” Led by journalist Errin Haines, the founding editor at large for The 19th, the project sets out to examine the roots of systemic racism in America through institutions founded in Philadelphia.
On Tuesday, the first chapter of the Inquirer’s project was published online — a 6,400-word report that took on a major Philly institution: The Philadelphia Inquirer.
That’s right. The Inquirer started with itself.
And the writer was not someone from the Inquirer, but Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Wesley Lowery, formerly The Washington Post.
In “Black City. White Paper.” Lowery writes, “The years since (George) Floyd’s death have forced the newspaper to face the reality that it, much like the democracy born in this city, has failed to fulfill the ideals of its founding. Rather than being an ‘inquirer for all,’ as its motto proudly claims, the paper has for the whole of its history been written largely for and by white Philadelphians, and largely at the expense of the Black residents who currently constitute a plurality of the city.”
Lowery interviewed more than 75 people for the deeply reported and critically important story. And Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote about the project in “The Philadelphia Inquirer set out to become an ‘anti-racist’ newspaper. That meant taking a tough look at its history.”
Read all of it when you get the chance.
AP launches standalone desk to expand climate change coverage
For this item, I turn it over to my Poynter colleague Angela Fu.
The Associated Press announced Tuesday that it will hire roughly 20 journalists in the United States, Brazil, India and Africa to staff a new desk devoted to climate coverage.
Those journalists will join current AP reporters who are already covering the climate to help the news agency expand its environmental reporting. The desk will also include a collaborations editor who will coordinate projects with local newsrooms and a climate data team.
“Together the team will transform how AP covers the climate story, including focusing on the profound and varied impacts of climate change on society in areas such as food, agriculture, migration, housing and urban planning, disaster response, the economy and culture,” the AP said in a press release.
The news comes as other major outlets ramp up their coverage of the climate crisis. Last week, the Washington Post announced it would create more than 20 new positions to augment its climate and extreme weather reporting, and last year, CNN launched its own climate desk.
Super Bowl ratings a big win for NBC
