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.
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.
