I'll take a hack at this.
Just going with a thumbnail sketch, the big case on defamation with respect to media is
New York Times v. Sullivan which is a US Supreme Court case that basically said that reporters could write about and publish alleged civil rights violations in the Deep South during the 60's. Previously, Alabama state courts had ruled against the NYT. Basing its decision on freedom of press and speech as guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments, the USSC raised the burden for a plaintiff to prove defamation by requiring that a statement is:
1 - Defamatory - which requires
proof of transmission of
false statements which
cause damage to someone's reputation. Lets assume for now that those publishing comments about the Patriots these days could be found to have made defamatory statements. In a real suit, there'd be problems with the 2nd element of falsehood, as many have so stupidly claimed over the last week, and possibly the 3rd element, depending on what exactly any given reporter wrote.
2 - A defamatory statement must also be made with
actual malice in the case of public figures (silly to argue argue Brady, Belichick, Kraft or the Patriots aren't public figures) - which is "a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."
Proof of actual malice is a pretty high standard for any defamation plaintiff to clear, especially because most of what is being put into the media will be asserted as constitutionally protected opinion. I think its fair to say that the media has enough protection to speculate on this topic, given what they believe to be true based on all other sorts of other (albeit, crappy) reporting.
What about Goodell? As much as we would like to see him go down in flames, I think a repeat from the bounty situation in New Orleans is likely. In
Vilma v. Goodell,
Vilma sued the big G for defamation in Louisiana. The court dismissed the case because
1) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (which allowed Goodell to investigate and suspend players, and also contains a non-suit provision) and a general rule against defamation claims that arise from an arbitration.
2) Even if the CBA issue from 1) wasn't an issue, Vilma's defamation claim still failed to sufficiently assert
actual malice (from above) because Goodell could have reasonably believed what he said after his investigation into the bounty situation. So, the case fell apart before the trial started (what is known as a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim).
