How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action?

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The other bad part is that he says the league determined the Patriots gained an advantage. Actually, the league's statement specifically stated the Patriots did not gain a competitive advantage.

 

[letekro]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

He won't go away - - he's an NFL Hall of Fame voter and has "announced his retirement" several times over the years.

How he gets away with continually and consciously stating this clear untruth against Robert Kraft's business without sanction is beyond understanding.

Seriously though. What do you want to happen? That he be arrested and charged with misstating a fact, something that has probably happened at least once in every single newspaper article since the beginning of time? If you want a civil suit from BB or the Patriots, that's a cost-benefit analysis that each one of them would have to go through and I would guess both are smart enough to see that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Seriously though. What do you want to happen? That he be arrested and charged with misstating a fact, something that has probably happened at least once in every single newspaper article since the beginning of time? If you want a civil suit from BB or the Patriots, that's a cost-benefit analysis that each one of them would have to go through and I would guess both are smart enough to see that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so.

Arrested? What????? Who said anything about being arrested?

No, Mr. Shapiro is taking a position at the Univerisity of Wisconsin next month as a Professor of Journalism.

There is a lot of leverage in that situation to get a full and public retraction for writing something he was shown as untrue in December and CONSCIOUSLY decided to repeat yesterday. He has been fully aware of the facts about this since mid-December.

The Journalism Department at the University of Wisconsin would be interested regarding who is teaching its students in the "craft".

 

[SanAngeloState]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

He can't be sued for libel unless the patriots are willing to go into discovery and be probed up and down for exactly what did happen. The standard is a wreckless disregard for the truth or something like that.

I guess they just want it to go away...seems that if people wrote to correct a simple misstatement that he would, if he were a fair minded reporter.

 

[Whorod]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The New York Times case made it very difficult to prove libel when the subject is a public figure (like Bill, or the Pats ownership).

The burden is on the public official or public figure to show that the media printed the allegedly libelous statement with actual malice. Actual malice is basically knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.

Then on top of all this, prove that you were "damaged" or harmed by the libel to get any significant compensation.

Tough standards.

 

[LuthierJr]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

I also sent a message to the obudsman. The response I got was:

Thanks for writing. As ombudsman, I operate independently from The Post. But I will share your e-mail with Mr. Shapiro and his editors. Separately, you may wish to submit a correction request ([email protected]). I play no role in adjudicating correction requests. But sending it to that address triggers a process where it must be addressed by Mr. Shapiro and/or his editors.

Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

So I encourage everyone to send a polite but firm request for a correction to that e-mail. I did!

 

[DarrylS]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

I wonder sometimes if the more we complain, the better it is for a media publication.. at least they know someone has read it and cares enough to elicit a response.. and that is what it is all about, see Ron Borges.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

He can't be sued for libel unless the patriots are willing to go into discovery and be probed up and down for exactly what did happen. The standard is a wreckless disregard for the truth or something like that.

I guess they just want it to go away...seems that if people wrote to correct a simple misstatement that he would, if he were a fair minded reporter.

People did that the first time in December - - right there on his blog comments section , plus he was e-mailed about it. He knows the truth of the matter. He consciously repeated it.

 

[FalconHeavy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

We should start living like NY ***holes with respect to patriots and media. Never to read anything outside of Boston, to be more specific, this forum

 

[patman52]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

libel is when you defame a person. Calling Belichick a cheater when he did cheat- protects him. You call a guy a murderer for killing his brother and he really killed his brother in law is the same type of thing.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

libel is when you defame a person. Calling Belichick a cheater when he did cheat- protects him. You call a guy a murderer for killing his brother and he really killed his brother in law is the same type of thing.

Missed by a mile.

He wrote "...the NFL determined his team improperly FILMED WALK-THROUGHS (!!!!) of opposing team practices and used that tape to their advantage. Belichick should have been suspended for that transgression, maybe even for a full season, but sadly, it never happened."

1) He wrote that he did something that he NEVER did. Your example is an epic fail, because your example is about doing the SAME THING that the man did, just to a different person.

2) Everyone is allowed an "oops" mistake if done unintentionally and corrected/retracted when made aware of it. However, this has been pointed out to Mr. Shapiro last month when he did it on a separate occasion. He KNOWS the difference and he published this knowingly.

If there is no retratction (he has gotten an e-mail box full again this time so he is aware of this), then it is a willful libel.

BTW, this is a man who is taking a position at a major university next month as a Journalism Professor. Shouldn't the University of Wisconsin be made aware of this and, if he writes no correction/retraction, doesn't that reflect on the efficacy of their program?

 

[lamafist]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Take a step back from the ledge, dude.

For it to be libel, there needs to be demonstrable malice and real damages or the provable reasonable expectation of damages. While this guy seems full of malice, considering the amount of exposure the story has already gotten, he's not in any position to tangibly damage Belichick or the Patriots in any way with old gossip.

Also, accusing someone of cheating in sports isn't like accusing someone of breaking the law, which is always actionable. People in the sporting world are often accused of various types of cheating -- is it slander when a player accuses another player of trying to poke eyes or bend fingers at the bottom of a pig-pile? Is it libel if a sports writer accused another team of stealing signals in baseball? In both cases, the answer would have to be no -- these accusations are common enough and easily enough shrugged off that there's no potential for actual damages.

Finally, the guy wasn't wrong that Belichick had been fined a large some of money and gotten his team penalized a 1st round draft pick for violating NFL rules about videotaping -- he just got what Belichick videotaped wrong. If Belichick or Kraft wanted, they could demand the WaPo issue a correction. They're not going to, because they're not idiots -- all that would do was call attention to the bitter raving imbecile's article. But even if the WaPo refused to issue the correction, there's no legal recourse, and there shouldn't be -- as part of our preservation of a free press, the courts do not get involved in squabbles between the public and the media unless there are actual damages being inflicted.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

I wonder sometimes if the more we complain, the better it is for a media publication.. at least they know someone has read it and cares enough to elicit a response.. and that is what it is all about, see Ron Borges.

Once again my good friend, the wise and knowledgeable DarrylS, has hit the nail square on the head. I've been saying it for years now. In this media climate, the worst thing you can do is be ignored. So these mediots spout extreme opinions and statements because those are the ones that get everyone all riled up, generating website hits, increasing ad revenue, etc, etc. And like DarrylS, I use Borges as my textbook example of same.

Everytime someone starts a thread like this, they give the writer of the article or opinion piece exactly what they wanted.

 

[lamafist]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The Washington Post smugly prides itself on its journalistic standards and has an Ombudsman on its editorial staff whose job description is: "He brings concerns about accuracy, fairness and ethics to the attention of Post reporters and editors. And he reports back to readers and critiques how certain decisions were made and certain policies came about."

Huh? How is it "smug" to employ an ombudsman? Most major newspapers do. Or is it just "smug" to have journalistic standards?

Also, don't bother the ombudsman about something stupid like this. He's got real issues of journalistic ethics to worry about, he doesn't need to bother himself with someone mouthy hack from the sports desk.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The New York Times case made it very difficult to prove libel when the subject is a public figure (like Bill, or the Pats ownership).

The burden is on the public official or public figure to show that the media printed the allegedly libelous statement with actual malice. Actual malice is basically knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.

Then on top of all this, prove that you were "damaged" or harmed by the libel to get any significant compensation.

Tough standards.

They are not tough standards. Especially in this case. The NFL released a statement that was PUBLISHED in the NY Times, Washington Post, and numerous other National Newspapers that clearly stated that the Patriots did NOT tape opponent practices nor did they gain an unfair competitive advantage. Any claim by Mr. Shapiro that he didn't know of the statement released by the NFL would be a bold faced lie.

Clearly, since several people have written to him with copies of siad statement, it falls into the "reckless disregard of truthfulness".

As for damage, spreading falsehoods about someone after they have been cleared of said wrongdoing is damaging their reputation. You don't have to prove MONETARY LOSS. And they don't need monetary compensation. A libel lawsuit would probably cost Mr. Shapiro his job at the University of Wisconsin. It would also be nearly impossible for him to get hired on with another newspaper.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

libel is when you defame a person. Calling Belichick a cheater when he did cheat- protects him. You call a guy a murderer for killing his brother and he really killed his brother in law is the same type of thing.

For Belichick to have cheated, the Pats would have had to have gained a competitive advantage during the game in which the films were taped. That did not happen.

You, like to many other people, think that breaking a rule is cheating. And that is not the case. Just like every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square..

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Take a step back from the ledge, dude.

For it to be libel, there needs to be demonstrable malice and real damages or the provable reasonable expectation of damages. While this guy seems full of malice, considering the amount of exposure the story has already gotten, he's not in any position to tangibly damage Belichick or the Patriots in any way with old gossip.

Epic fail.

He is an NFL Hall of Fame voter.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Once again my good friend, the wise and knowledgeable DarrylS, has hit the nail square on the head. I've been saying it for years now. In this media climate, the worst thing you can do is be ignored. So these mediots spout extreme opinions and statements because those are the ones that get everyone all riled up, generating website hits, increasing ad revenue, etc, etc. And like DarrylS, I use Borges as my textbook example of same.

Everytime someone starts a thread like this, they give the writer of the article or opinion piece exactly what they wanted.

He no longer is a full-time media member. Next month he starts his new life as a Professor of Journalism at the University of Wisconsin.

Not sure this would go over as well with Journalism Deans.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

libel is when you defame a person. Calling Belichick a cheater when he did cheat- protects him. You call a guy a murderer for killing his brother and he really killed his brother in law is the same type of thing.

I think people are talking about accusing him of filming walkthroughs, which he never did.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Update: Someone at the Washingtonpost.com website has now edited the text of the blog. They have the incorrect information with a line through it and updated, correct information about what the penalty entailed.

No comment as of yet from the esteemed Professor of Journalism.