Say Hello To New Owner of Herald: Bob Kraft

[patchick]

There's a world of difference between sloppy journalism and Libel. Sloppy journalism is not against the law and Libel is very difficult to prove.

Ab-so-lutely. It's plain and simple: if Walsh -- a man who was employed by the Patriots during SBXXXVI preparations -- told them there was taping, there is NO WAY you can win a libel suit for their statement that "a source says there was taping." Some folks in this thread want to apply professional journalistic standards of quality rather than legal standards of libel, but it doesn't work that way. If you want proof, head to the nearest checkout stand and ask how many headlines on the gossip tabloids have been vetted by multiple sources, j-school style.

The whole business sucks, but you can't sue for everything in life that sucks.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Ab-so-lutely. It's plain and simple: if Walsh -- a man who was employed by the Patriots during SBXXXVI preparations -- told them there was taping, there is NO WAY you can win a libel suit for their statement that "a source says there was taping." Some folks in this thread want to apply professional journalistic standards of quality rather than legal standards of libel, but it doesn't work that way. If you want proof, head to the nearest checkout stand and ask how many headlines on the gossip tabloids have been vetted by multiple sources, j-school style.

The whole business sucks, but you can't sue for everything in life that sucks.

To all those who believe they're experts on libel, the Patriots are considering legal action. They have much better lawyers than any of our members. They would not be considering legal action if it was stupid. Some folks think they know better than others.

no offense patchick, but despite your logical reasoning, there may be more to this than meets the eye. You may be right & "some folks" might be right. Also, no one is saying the legal action will be libel...although that has been alluded to in the media.

Finally, I said it once and I'll say it again...members of the media can't write or say anything they please without regard to consequences. That's not an opinion, that is fact. Otherwise false stories, lies & inuendo's would cover our papers from front to back.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Pat Purcell, your ass is about to be sued to oblivion. Kraft, please fire the two inside track "gals"

Matt Walsh has no money, but Tomase's employer, Herald has a few bux left. All Patriots, All the Time, the New herald! LOL

"Say Hello To New Owner of Herald: Bob Kraft "

Jonathan should just walk into Tomasse's office shouting "Say hello to my little friend!"

btw, where's the little smiley shooting the machine gun when you need it?

 

[patchick]

To all those who believe they're experts on libel, the Patriots are considering legal action. They have much better lawyers than any of our members. They would not be considering legal action if it was stupid. Some folks think they know better than others.

no offense patchick, but despite your logical reasoning, there may be more to this than meets the eye. You may be right & "some folks" might be right. Also, no one is saying the legal action will be libel...although that has been alluded to in the media.

Finally, I said it once and I'll say it again...members of the media can't write or say anything they please without regard to consequences. That's not an opinion, that is fact. Otherwise false stories, lies & inuendo's would cover our papers from front to back.

No offense taken. A couple of responses to the bolded points. First, SAYING that you're "considering legal action" is simply a standard way to indicate that you feel you have been, as Jane Austen would put it, "ill-used." It in no way suggests that your crack legal team feels it has a winning suit. Remember how Bob Lobel made a lot of noise about "considering legal action" against the comic strip that said he looked drunk? (And as an aside, stop and consider a moment why you're so certain that the Patriots really are "considering legal action.")

Second, you're absolutely right that there could be other kinds of legal action rather than a libel suit against the Herald. For instance, if Walsh maliciously fabricated accusations against the team that fired him, HE could certainly be liable.

Finally, there certainly are consequences to filing false stories. They're professional consequences, and Tomase and the Herald will be feeling them for some time. You can lose your reputation, your contacts and your career. Nobody in "real" journalism takes that lightly. But for an example of what happens when you DO take that lightly, look again to the gossip tabloids. They do, indeed, write whatever the heck they want, and they get away with it because it's nearly impossible for a public figure to win a libel case against an American newspaper. Instead, celebrities wage all of their libel wars against British publications because the standards of proof are very different under British law.

 

[ScottieC]

No offense taken. A couple of responses to the bolded points. First, SAYING that you're "considering legal action" is simply a standard way to indicate that you feel you have been, as Jane Austen would put it, "ill-used." It in no way suggests that your crack legal team feels it has a winning suit. Remember how Bob Lobel made a lot of noise about "considering legal action" against the comic strip that said he looked drunk? (And as an aside, stop and consider a moment why you're so certain that the Patriots really are "considering legal action.")

Second, you're absolutely right that there could be other kinds of legal action rather than a libel suit against the Herald. For instance, if Walsh maliciously fabricated accusations against the team that fired him, HE could certainly be liable.

Finally, there certainly are consequences to filing false stories. They're professional consequences, and Tomase and the Herald will be feeling them for some time. You can lose your reputation, your contacts and your career. Nobody in "real" journalism takes that lightly. But for an example of what happens when you DO take that lightly, look again to the gossip tabloids. They do, indeed, write whatever the heck they want, and they get away with it because it's nearly impossible for a public figure to win a libel case against an American newspaper. Instead, celebrities wage all of their libel wars against British publications because the standards of proof are very different under British law.

Just a quick correction: Tommasse could be sued for Libel (Written) and Walsh could be sued for Slander (Spoken).

 

[patchick]

Just a quick correction: Tommasse could be sued for Libel (Written) and Walsh could be sued for Slander (Spoken).

Ah, but I never said said Walsh could be sued for libel, I said he could be liable!

 

[ScottieC]

To all those who believe they're experts on libel, the Patriots are considering legal action. They have much better lawyers than any of our members. They would not be considering legal action if it was stupid. Some folks think they know better than others.

no offense patchick, but despite your logical reasoning, there may be more to this than meets the eye. You may be right & "some folks" might be right. Also, no one is saying the legal action will be libel...although that has been alluded to in the media.

Finally, I said it once and I'll say it again...members of the media can't write or say anything they please without regard to consequences. That's not an opinion, that is fact. Otherwise false stories, lies & innuendo's would cover our papers from front to back.

All Kraft has to do is prove that his organization was harmed, either discredited (easy) and/or loss of income/value (harder) - That would be the basis for the case. Kraft does not have to win this case for vindication - The court could throw the case out, however the depositions and discovery would become public in this case - Most likely a civil law suit in which Kraft would then release the findings.

It's really not as preposterous as some would like to think that it is, to Kraft and Patriots organization It would be back up to what they have already said, that all these claims are 100% false - Other than what they have already agreed is true and admitted to the NFL.

I think Walsh is going to talk, but again I say that there is work being done to protect Specter, because Walsh has nothing other than what we already now know and that's NOT what Specter is parading around the country saying.

 

[ScottieC]

Ah, but I never said said Walsh could be sued for libel, I said he could be liable!

Yea, I know that. I was not talking to you. It was more a general comment about an error that is happening more and more on this board. Just an FYI.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

All Kraft has to do is prove that his organization was harmed, either discredited (easy) and/or loss of income/value (harder) - That would be the basis for the case. Kraft does not have to win this case for vindication - The court could throw the case out, however the depositions and discovery would become public in this case - Most likely a civil law suit in which Kraft would then release the findings.

It's really not as preposterous as some would like to think that it is, to Kraft and Patriots organization It would be back up to what they have already said, that all these claims are 100% false - Other than what they have already agreed is true and admitted to the NFL.

I think Walsh is going to talk, but again I say that there is work being done to protect Specter, because Walsh has nothing other than what we already now know and that's NOT what Specter is parading around the country saying.

Which is exactly why Kraft will never sue...any sources who are alluding to a potential lawsuit ABSENT Walsh talking are just rattling sabers or spinning potentially titilating scenarios. The only reason for Kraft to sue would be IF Walsh spoke and what he said damaged Kraft and he could disprove what was said. MATT WALSH HAS SAID NOTHING, he has merely hinted he might have something could be damaging to show or say. Suing him just entrenches this crap on the football media's front burner INDEFINITELY since these cases can drag on for months if not years and discovery is a double edged sword that can backfire even above and beyond the case at hand. I can't imagine Kraft wants to spend the late summer and fall watching his entire staff and possibly even players and former employees being deposed in a potentially wide ranging manner by Levy.

The point of all of this has been to get Walsh to speak his piece and turn over any evidence in his posession to the league so they can assess it's credibility absent reciprocal discovery, or to admit he has nothing credible to share and he was just blowing smoke up some mediots asses because he thought he saw an opportunity to get back at an employer who canned him.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Yes, but newspapers can't just go printing everything and anything they please without some verification or validation. That is irresponsible journalism and reckless behavior. I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe that they could be held responsible for libel. Otherwise, you wouldn't see "the Patriots may be considering pursuing legal action...." being stated by so many journalists.

Oh, the press says the patriots may be considering legal action?

Well, the press is pretty knowledgeable about these things and usually has great sources. Wait a minute, isn't that what this thread is about in the first place?

Patchick's got it exactly right. There's a case here only if the Herald made up having a source or had actual knowledge the information was wrong. Sorry, that's the law. It's fun to think the law is something else when you're mad at a newspaper like everyone here is, but this is black letter first amendment law. Pick up any "national enquirer" style newspaper in your grocery's rack. Papers know how to write articles to avoid getting sued. So does the Herald.

The funny part is that even if you strongly suspected that the Herald didn't have a source, it would be nearly impossible to prove, because they don't have to reveal their source. I don't believe there's anyone that's ever done anything but speculate that it's Walsh.

Not going to get in a debate whether I'm a "better lawyer" than whatever person with the Patriots "may be" "considering" legal action. But I'm enough of one to know of what I speak.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Can we just put a sock in it about a lawsuit?

Think a minute before posting wish fullfillment fantasies, people.
Stop the fantasizing. Dream of your making it with Brady's GF; it's more likely.

I tried to make a similar point earlier in thread by pointing out that a suit would have to show damages if it were going to be anything more than a vanity suit.

Since it's unlikely that the Krafts could show reduced Ticket, TV or Merchandise revenues, the only likely alternative would be to demonstrate that the value of the franchise had been negatively impacted. Since the Patriots are not traded on any open market, the only way to show these damages would be to try to sell the team and discover that the bid was less than previous third party estimates of its value (Forbes, e.g.). Kraft could then attempt to claim that the loss of value was due to the article.

That's a stretch for two reasons: one, there's zero evidence that the Krafts have any interest in shopping the team; two, making the connection to the article would be tough.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Oh, the press says the patriots may be considering legal action?

Well, the press is pretty knowledgeable about these things and usually has great sources. Wait a minute, isn't that what this thread is about in the first place?

Patchick's got it exactly right. There's a case here only if the Herald made up having a source or had actual knowledge the information was wrong. Sorry, that's the law. It's fun to think the law is something else when you're mad at a newspaper like everyone here is, but this is black letter first amendment law. Pick up any "national enquirer" style newspaper in your grocery's rack. Papers know how to write articles to avoid getting sued. So does the Herald.

The funny part is that even if you strongly suspected that the Herald didn't have a source, it would be nearly impossible to prove, because they don't have to reveal their source. I don't believe there's anyone that's ever done anything but speculate that it's Walsh.

Not going to get in a debate whether I'm a "better lawyer" than whatever person with the Patriots "may be" "considering" legal action. But I'm enough of one to know of what I speak.

No, they don't have to reveal their source. But there are times and circumstances when there are consequences and sanctions for not doing so. I'm not saying that this is one such instance, but you should be more circumspect in making blanket statements like this.

If you think I'm kidding, go and talk to Judith Miller about this subject....

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

No, they don't have to reveal their source. But there are times and circumstances when there are consequences and sanctions for not doing so. I'm not saying that this is one such instance, but you should be more circumspect in making blanket statements like this.

If you think I'm kidding, go and talk to Judith Miller about this subject....

What does Judith Miller have to do with a lawsuit against the Herald, which is what this thread is about.

I concede that if a Grand Jury is empanelled to investigate criminal conduct, and there is a substantial reason to believe that the Herald's source, BY SPEAKING TO THE PRESS, committed a felony, then, yes, depending on what state the conversation took place in (or where the source was speaking), there may be a qualified privilege to protect the source. There, have I adequately qualified my "blanket statement"?

This is a thread about suing the Herald for libel. So, you're right, I'm guilty as charged for not anticipating a fantasy scenario in which Matt Walsh was somehow violating the espionoge act when he spoke with Tomase. Are you suggesting that's a possibility?

Ok, then. I stand by the statement. The Herald cannot be required to reveal its source. I make this not as a blanket statement. Let's call it a "quilt" statement.

(Obviously, this is a bit tounge in cheek, take it with good nature, ok?)

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

SInce you say it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'll take it with good nature, OK?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I don't know exactly what prompted the idea here that Kraft is suing the Herald, or will therefore own the newspaper (not the customary outcome of libel suits, to my understanding, although I am not a lawyer.)

I do agree, from my layman's perch, that it seems counterintuitive that tabloids can claim (for instance) that Brittney Spears is pregnant with a space alien's two-headed love-child, but that a sportswriter from the Herald can not rely on an "anonymous source."

It's bad journalism, or "gossip" journalism, to disregard the job of corroboration. But of course, "Yeah I heard that too" probably counts as corroboration, especially in the sports journalism press. Many of these guys seem to be jocks and wannabe jocks that couldn't cover a girl-scout bake-sale and identify the five Ws in the story. Of course, the media in general have become more "first"-driven, which drives down standards across the board, but I believe the standards in political journalism (for instance) start off a tad higher, because the stakes are higher.

Regardless, there is a good reason that the bar for a claim of Libel is high, and can hardly ever be satisfied in the case of a public figure. That is, that the powerful could use such standards to crush the weak, whose only outlet is the press. And so there is a wide area of leeway, which allows an awful lot of irresponsibility in the name of freedom.

The difficulty is that a "responsible" press is much more difficult to define than a "free" press. Ultimately, yes, there is such a thing as libel; but to prove that any given writer "KNEW" his info was false, especially when he quotes "anonymous sources" to cover himself, is ultimately an exercise in futility.

I'm wrong all the time, of course, and this might just be another instance. But I really think "getting back at those dabnab irresponsible papers we don't agree with" is a silly fantasy.

We WANT maximum press latitude, indeed, even IRRESPONSIBLE rumor-reporting, when it comes to other areas of football. Suddenly it's libel when it comes to the Pats.

Eh, write letters to editors, call in to sports shows, whatever you want to do to present the actual facts. But don't count on a libel suit.

PFnV

 

[patchick]

We WANT maximum press latitude, indeed, even IRRESPONSIBLE rumor-reporting, when it comes to other areas of football. Suddenly it's libel when it comes to the Pats.

Exhibit 1: "The Colts pipe in crowd noise!"

 

[PatsFanInVa]

"But they DO! It's a well-known RUMOR!"

 

[SVN]

nice one liner by PFT

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

If John Tomase of the Boston Herald is hoping to get back in the Pats’ fans graces in the aftermath of his controversial (and, by all present appearances, erroneous) report that the home team videotaped the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, openly touting the drafting prowess of the Colts isn’t the ideal strategy for making that happen.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Maybe the boy is looking for a job in a different venue. He should be.

 

[PatriotsReign]

No offense taken. A couple of responses to the bolded points. First, SAYING that you're "considering legal action" is simply a standard way to indicate that you feel you have been, as Jane Austen would put it, "ill-used." It in no way suggests that your crack legal team feels it has a winning suit. Remember how Bob Lobel made a lot of noise about "considering legal action" against the comic strip that said he looked drunk? (And as an aside, stop and consider a moment why you're so certain that the Patriots really are "considering legal action.")

Second, you're absolutely right that there could be other kinds of legal action rather than a libel suit against the Herald. For instance, if Walsh maliciously fabricated accusations against the team that fired him, HE could certainly be liable.

Finally, there certainly are consequences to filing false stories. They're professional consequences, and Tomase and the Herald will be feeling them for some time. You can lose your reputation, your contacts and your career. Nobody in "real" journalism takes that lightly. But for an example of what happens when you DO take that lightly, look again to the gossip tabloids. They do, indeed, write whatever the heck they want, and they get away with it because it's nearly impossible for a public figure to win a libel case against an American newspaper. Instead, celebrities wage all of their libel wars against British publications because the standards of proof are very different under British law.

Show me a person who believes gossip tabloid stories are "Real" and you'll be showing me an idiot...a REAL idiot. C'mon Patchick, that is a poor example. If a "Real" newspaper printed everything and anything they pleased, I guarantee you they would be sued and they would lose. It is not just reputation that prevents and discourages newspapers from this practice. It is legal consequences.