Say Hello To New Owner of Herald: Bob Kraft

[PatriotsReign]

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

Excellent point (in bold)!! I also strongly feel that many journalists feel they are a big part of the "sports scene" and that they too are celebrities. What they don't realize is that they are not even close. Even someone as respected as Peter Gammons would not be missed by many baseball fans if he were to retire. I think they want to feel important, but they are just journalists. Back in the day when there were only sports writers and the local guy on the news, they had a much clearer picture of their true place in sports.

The advent of ESPN and several sports chronicle shows and the hour-long pre-game shows gave sports media types a new goal they see as their holy grail. I guess they want to be famous. What they don't realize is that there isn't one television sports figure fans would miss for more than a week or two.

 

[patchick]

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.

PR, this is a completely circular argument! Gossip rags print whatever they please without regard to proper journalistic standards, but they don't get sued because nobody believes them; if a "real" paper did that they would get sued. No, if "real" paper did that they would BE a gossip rag!

You suggest that the gossip rags don't get sued because "nobody believes them." On the contrary, tabloid targets have always sued when they thought they could succeed. Everything changed back in 1981, when Carol Burnett very famously sued the National Enquirer for libel and got a big judgment against them that changed the tabloid industry in the U.S. The publishers carefully adopted minimal standards that put them just barely into the clear against libel suits without actually making them tell the truth. (No matter what we all think of the Herald article, surely we can all agree that they at least followed the level of journalistic standards of the Enquirer?) Today tabloid targets still routinely sue, but always in British courts because THEY CAN'T WIN HERE.

I'm not saying there are no legal standards, just that they're very, very low on purpose -- to keep a free press, unafraid of printing negative stories about the rich and powerful. Just as with free speech, it means that we have to tolerate a certain amount of crap that we don't like. I'm afraid that the Herald story falls into that category: crap that we don't like, but just have to live with...legally speaking. As consumers, though, we can take that paper and chuck it.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Today tabloid targets still routinely sue, but always in British courts because THEY CAN'T WIN HERE.

You just revealed Kraft's secret plan!

Play NFL games in London and sue the pants off the Herald!

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

PR, this is a completely circular argument! Gossip rags print whatever they please without regard to proper journalistic standards, but they don't get sued because nobody believes them; if a "real" paper did that they would get sued. No, if "real" paper did that they would BE a gossip rag!

Check out the big brain on patchick! ;0)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Couldn't have said it as well myself, actually.

Our country's founders believed that a free press was instrumental to correctly-functioning democracy. The Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to mean you provide speech -- and particularly that coming from the press -- with a safety zone. You allow the crap to preserve the gold.

The reason the Herald can't be sued here (unless they didn't really have a source) is really one of the most important and precious tenant of our constitution. You don't feret out the truth by restricting speech (whether with the sword or the checkbook, ie. civil fines and lawsuits). Just doesn't work. Because the "truth" ultimately becomes whatever the person holding the sword or making you write the check believes. The concept of "truth" becomes awfully subjective when the government or courts get to decide what it is. Nope -- The only real way to feret out bad speech is with more speech. (Civics lesson over now. Thanks.)

 

[PatriotsReign]

PR, this is a completely circular argument! Gossip rags print whatever they please without regard to proper journalistic standards, but they don't get sued because nobody believes them; if a "real" paper did that they would get sued. No, if "real" paper did that they would BE a gossip rag!

You suggest that the gossip rags don't get sued because "nobody believes them." On the contrary, tabloid targets have always sued when they thought they could succeed. Everything changed back in 1981, when Carol Burnett very famously sued the National Enquirer for libel and got a big judgment against them that changed the tabloid industry in the U.S. The publishers carefully adopted minimal standards that put them just barely into the clear against libel suits without actually making them tell the truth. (No matter what we all think of the Herald article, surely we can all agree that they at least followed the level of journalistic standards of the Enquirer?) Today tabloid targets still routinely sue, but always in British courts because THEY CAN'T WIN HERE.

I'm not saying there are no legal standards, just that they're very, very low on purpose -- to keep a free press, unafraid of printing negative stories about the rich and powerful. Just as with free speech, it means that we have to tolerate a certain amount of crap that we don't like. I'm afraid that the Herald story falls into that category: crap that we don't like, but just have to live with...legally speaking. As consumers, though, we can take that paper and chuck it.

It was not a "circular argument" patchick. A gossip rag is a gossip rag and a newpaper is a newspaper...neither can cross-over to the other...at least they should not be able to do so. I know it will never happen, but I think newpapers should be forced to declare if they are a "gossip rag" or a legitimate newspaper and then be held by law to act accordingly. Hell, I'd vote for such a law.

If you haven't noticed patchick, newspapers have gotten less and less responsible in their reporting. We need to ask ourselves why. If the answer is people love gossip, then we'll know that the laws need to be changed.

Newspapers should NEVER be for entertainment. They should be for factual information only. For the life of me, I can't figure out why our younger generations are the ones who enjoy gossip & speculation more than their elder counterparts. Why do you think that is?

As far as negative stories of the wealthy & powerful...I don't think newpapers should have anymore freedom regarding them than anyone else.

 

[patchick]

PatriotsReign, I share your dismay about the decline of journalistic standards. Unfortunately, the question in this case and so many others isn't what the party in question should do, it's what they can do. What's more, it's impossible to pass a law, as you suggest, restricting the publishing of crap. You'd have to pass a constitutional amendment, and tinkering with the Bill of Rights is scary business.

But we DO have weapons in the war on crap. We're using them right now. Heck, it was a guy posting on a messageboard who revealed Ron Borges' crap and cost him his job.

 

[PatriotsReign]

PatriotsReign, I share your dismay about the decline of journalistic standards. Unfortunately, the question in this case and so many others isn't what the party in question should do, it's what they can do. What's more, it's impossible to pass a law, as you suggest, restricting the publishing of crap. You'd have to pass a constitutional amendment, and tinkering with the Bill of Rights is scary business.

But we DO have weapons in the war on crap. We're using them right now. Heck, it was a guy posting on a messageboard who revealed Ron Borges' crap and cost him his job.

And thank God Borges is gone! I fully understand the legalities and constitutionality of laws regarding freedom of the press. I just like to vent my frustration on this board. It's a great place for catharcism!

Thankfully, there are people like you who listen and respond!

 

[GrogansArmy]

But we DO have weapons in the war on crap. We're using them right now. Heck, it was a guy posting on a messageboard who revealed Ron Borges' crap and cost him his job.

I missed that, what happened?

 

[flasox27]

Borges was run out of town when his plaigarism was found out. The fat slob on the Herald may be following in Borges's footsteps soon.:rocker:

 

[Kontradiction]

I missed that, what happened?

Borges plagiarized a story about the Pats from a Seattle newspaper, I believe. The kid blogged about it online and the story quickly picked up steam. Borges didn't stand a chance.

I think that's what happened. Even though it was only a year ago, my memory is not all that good when it comes to that.

 

[Joker]

that fat slob is gonna get his fat mouth punched in if he shows that stupid, geek, fat freakin' ugly girl face in public. Just LOOK at this idiot's mug sometime and tell me this isn't the fat turd kid from elementary school who always ratted everyone out to teacher.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It was not a "circular argument" patchick. A gossip rag is a gossip rag and a newpaper is a newspaper...neither can cross-over to the other...at least they should not be able to do so. I know it will never happen, but I think newpapers should be forced to declare if they are a "gossip rag" or a legitimate newspaper and then be held by law to act accordingly. Hell, I'd vote for such a law.

If you haven't noticed patchick, newspapers have gotten less and less responsible in their reporting. We need to ask ourselves why. If the answer is people love gossip, then we'll know that the laws need to be changed.

Newspapers should NEVER be for entertainment. They should be for factual information only. For the life of me, I can't figure out why our younger generations are the ones who enjoy gossip & speculation more than their elder counterparts. Why do you think that is?

As far as negative stories of the wealthy & powerful...I don't think newpapers should have anymore freedom regarding them than anyone else.

Ok, let's accept all that.

What are the rules? What is "responsible" reporting? What is "factual information."

Most important -- who gets to decide?

"John Kerry was not a war hero." Fact? Opinion? A little of both? Permitted reporting in a newspaper? How about a gossip rag? What's the punishment if not? Who gets to decide? What means do they have of enforcing it? Fines? Jail time? Contempt?

Our founding fathers were smarter than you or me. They got it. There is only one remedy for "irresponsible journalism." More speech. If you think someone is wrong, respond. Don't give government, courts, or this mythical "law" you say you are in favor of passing decide what is "responsible." You can spend the next 20 years to try to write such a law, and it won't work. Because, in the end, truth, responsibility, and similar concepts are all relative. And, more important, the only thing that matters is what the people who have the power and the sword believe is the truth. Responsible journalism to Stalin meant something much different from responsible journalism to Ghandi.

The loose rules tolerating irrelesponsible journalism give YOU the power. The power to decide what is the truth. The power to decide what magazines to read, what commentators to believe. You get to decide how you will view Tomase or the Herald in the future. You get to educate yourself on what's true and who is right and who is wrong. Not courts. Sure, we love the idea of Tomase getting slammed by the courts for the story. But what kind of effect is that going to have on the next guy with a big story? The guy who has a source that he's pretty sure about that says that Michael Vick has a dog ring. Or the guy who has a source that meets him in a garage and tells him the President's key advisor is running a slush fund to illegally discredit his political opponents?

Speech is good. Even bad speech is good.

 

[Joker]

Source: Pats employee filmed Rams
By John Tomase | Saturday, February 2, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | N.E. Patriots
Photo
Photo by Nancy Lane

PHOENIX - One night before the Patriots [team stats] face the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, new allegations have emerged about a Patriots employee taping the Rams’ final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI.

According to a source, a member of the team’s video department filmed the Rams’ final walkthrough before that 2002 game. The next day, the Patriots upset St. Louis, 20-17, on a last-second field goal by Adam Vinatieri for their first championship.

this fat turd needs his face punched in. No one should post this idiotic libelous baby poo-poo the DAY BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL.

 

[Char2na]

Dude, there would be a Mac and Cheese add like every other page.

This made my laugh out loud. What's scary is that many of these people have offspring.

http://forum.colts.com/showthread.php?t=29424