fgssand

Of course, other than Mike Reiss and a few others...the Globe sucks too....

__________________
Season ticket holder since 1971, first in section 209 and now in 134.

Enjoying the ride - watching TB get his 4th!!!!

RayClay

I agree. Seemed to be plenty of sources including ESPN, if I'm not mistaken.

__________________

ctpatsfan77

IANAL, but I quote Wikipedia here: "Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements:

• The plaintiff must prove that the information was published. Check.
• The plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified. Check.
• The remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation. Check.
• The published information is false. Apparently--Check.
• The defendant is at fault. This is the only remaining question.

Since the Pats are public figures, they would have to show that the Herald published with reckless disregard for the truth--basically, that either the Herald knew the information was cr*p, or that they had reason to believe it was false, and went ahead and printed it anyways.

As for why they haven't sued already--they're probably working on that last point.

__________________
THE GHOST: LOCKED UP THROUGH 2014

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wildo7

Thta' the point though. It's incredibly hard to prove they knew that and the "information" we are talking about isn't that "there was a tape out there" it's that "according to one source there is a tape out there." These are semantical differences that mean a world of difference in a court of law.

Patriotic Fervor

Newspapers have editorial boards that are supposed to insure that if stuff like this gets into print, it's vetted beforehand. That apparently did not happen in this case.

Sure, we're in the era of loose (I daresay, very loose!) journalistic standards, but laws pertaining to libel (and slander) are still there on the books, still enforceable, and still able to wreak havoc on those who, wittingly or unwittingly, have crossed the threshold.

Because of this incredibly sloppy editorial "oversight", we can begin to see movement into that gray, dangerous area known as "malice aforethought", an area whose arcane cant and recondite passageways instill a good deal of angst in even the most battle tested attorneys representing the publishing field.

The problem for Thomase, and by extension the Herald, is that what he did, what he said, was done under the rubric of professional journalist, working for a major metropolitan newspaper.

Had he written a post about that rumor/allegation on, say, this board (just an example - any board would really do) under the name of Heywood Jablomi, nobody would have taken notice, and it's content (and intent!) would have been forgotten and lost instantly.

But instead, while acting like a blogger, he lent his name, his profession, and his employer to this perversion so as to enhance it's credibility with the general public. This was done not to further the public discourse, but to deliberately slander the object of his "column" with a loud but unverifiable j'accuse!, coupled with unmistakable timing so as to maximize the import of the damaging allegations while giving the ball club virtually no time or chance to respond effectively on the eve of the team's biggest game.

Because Thomase did this thing in a professional capacity, his obvious disregard for factual accuracy in that capacity exposes him (and his employer) to charges of wanton recklessness, which gives rise to the term "malice aforethought".

Further complicating matters for the Herald is the fact that they have done nothing about him, the article, the rumor itself, or the people associated with the story in any manner, the implication being the paper views this whole episode as acceptable journalism.

The problem for the Herald is, will the courts take that view, too?

We shall see.

__________________
....and that's the way I see it!

flasox27

I am sure Kraft can afford very good attorneys who willdo what ever they can at the appropriate time. Payback is coming.

bresna

According to Tomase in his weekly Loren & Wally chat the week following the article, his editors made him go out and get this story after it was broken in the New York Times. He said he would not publish it until he got the source to verify the allegation. If this goes to court, and I doubt it does, the source would have to be ferreted out. No easy thing.

pats1

Not until they know what Walsh has.

pats1

You can't just go blaming it on the source. It's Tomase and the paper's job to ensure their sources are accurate.

ScottieC

Sure it is, he's sued and has to reveal WHO is the source that told him the info, if he does not reveal the source he goes to jail for Contempt of Court.

Bottom line is people are responsible for their actions, TomASSe is no excpetion, he either backs his story up and proves the truth OR his ass (i.e. His Employer) pays dearly.

I understand all the legal wrangling, but in the end it's a pretty simple case - Prove your liabous article to be true.