Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Running from defamation

The legal team of The New York Times sounds a little... panicked.

The New York Times filed a “Motion to Dismiss” request in an attempt to toss out the lawsuit and evade their wrongdoing.

Maggie Astor, The New York Times reporter who wrote the defamatory article, affirmed in her piece that the Veritas videos have “solely” unnamed sources. 

“The video then claims that Democratic operatives connected to Ms. [Ilhan] Omar’s campaign paid voters to hand over blank mail-in ballots and filled them out. This would be illegal, but the allegations come solely from unnamed people who speak with Project Veritas operatives in the video and whose faces are not shown,” she said.

In an affidavit, Astor said that the videos have “many” unnamed sources.

“Many of the individuals featured in the Video were unnamed, and there was no way for me to verify the claims that the unnamed sources purport to make in the Video,” she said.

Astor said she relied on Project Veritas’ “reputation” when making her unfounded claims.

“I know of Project Veritas and, before writing my articles about the Video, I knew that it had a reputation for publishing deceptively-edited videos and had been publicly criticized many times for doing so,” she said.

While arguing to dismiss the case, The New York Times’ legal team cited Wikipedia.

“Project Veritas bills itself as a ‘prominent independent journalistic organization,’ but it is described on its Wikipedia page (and just about everywhere else) as ‘an American far-right activist group founded by James O’Keefe’ that ‘uses undercover techniques to reveal supposed liberal bias and corruption and is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations, left-leaning groups, and debunked conspiracy theories,’” they said.

Wikipedia themselves admit that their website is not a reliable source of information.

New York Times’ legal team also labelled Astor’s article an opinion piece to avoid Project Veritas’ charges of defamation.

Now, I'm no legal expert, but even a humble consumer advocate knows that if your defense against a charge of defamation involves relying upon Wikipedia, you're probably in trouble. 

Labels: ,


Blogger Eduardo January 27, 2021 8:10 AM  

This theory has been debunked ò_ó

Oldest trick in the rethorical book.

Blogger Ken Prescott January 27, 2021 8:16 AM  

The "everybody knows so-and-so is such-and-such" defense is about as idiotic as citing Wikipedia.

Blogger wgmeisheid January 27, 2021 8:20 AM  

The N.Y. Times is going to keep Project Veritas funded for a very long time. Ha! Couldn't happen to a better poseur.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2021 8:32 AM  

Bonus points, their other two references against Veritas' reliability are "they made claims we said were debunked, so they're debunked!", and "it has a reputation, that we created, of using deceptively edited videos... like we do all the time".

Blogger SSgt Snafui January 27, 2021 8:36 AM  

Did they just use defamatory statements to argue on why the case against them on defamation should be dismissed..?

Blogger SurfingUSA January 27, 2021 8:38 AM  

O'Keefe burns the NYT big-time in his video:

Including where he quotes their response to his lawsuit:

“But even an extreme departure from professional standards does not establish actual malice.”

What the actual hell?

Blogger Avalanche January 27, 2021 8:42 AM  

"New York Times’ legal team also labelled Astor’s article an opinion piece"

NYT: "OMG! We got caught! QUICK! "Call it NOT-any-news-that's-fit-to-print!"

Funny, it wasn't on the OP-ED pages... Oh, I get it -- the whole cage-liner is opinion; it's only "news" if you believe it!

Blogger szook January 27, 2021 8:49 AM  

"And, your honor, we'd gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids..."

Blogger D. January 27, 2021 8:51 AM  

"In an affidavit, Astor said that the videos have “many” unnamed sources."

control f the NYT for: "unnamed sources"

Blogger MichaelJMaier January 27, 2021 8:57 AM  

Bankers and the NY Slimes being prepped for a rape on the same day?


Blogger Pontificus Maximus January 27, 2021 9:02 AM  

“Astor”?!? Can some geneology-gifted legionnaire please do a deep dive on this broad?

Blogger Jpc January 27, 2021 9:03 AM  

The truth has them rattled!

Blogger Glen Sprigg January 27, 2021 9:22 AM  

I love watching leftist arrogance melt away in the face of reality. In just two short years they've turned me, a lifelong 'conservative' and 'treat everyone equally' kind of person into a full-on Christian Nationalist who wants to kick each and every one of the Diversity types off the continent, preferably while wearing steel-toed boots.

Blogger Canadian Warlord January 27, 2021 9:24 AM  

Of their edited for time videos, I've seen more than one Project Veritas posting that was the 100% complete unedited video. One was 50 minutes or an hour long, for a 30 second 'money shot.' My BS detector is going off...

The untruth of 'truthiness' (thank you Stephen Colbert) bites back. This is like Graham Hancock and BBC Horizons. Evidence for always fighting back!

Blogger Boaty Bear January 27, 2021 9:41 AM  

Current CEO of the NYT - Mark Thompson

Former Director General of the BBC - Mark Thompson
(Covered up for Jimmy Saville!)

Mark Thompson - Pedo Protector General!

Blogger Ray - SoCal January 27, 2021 9:42 AM  

And the Sarah Palin NYT Defamation lawsuit is also moving forward...

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2021 9:42 AM  

All of a sudden they don't like unnamed sources.

Blogger JWM in SD January 27, 2021 9:44 AM  

I wonder if this lawsuit will the debunking lies and propaganda. It's definitely needed.

Blogger Boaty Bear January 27, 2021 9:48 AM  

The Astors, Aren't they the actual richest family in the UK?

Blogger Watchu talkin bout Willis January 27, 2021 9:51 AM  

I hope they get milked for every cent, then Project Veritas demolishes the NYT building, leaving the rubble intact in the heart of NY as a memorial for future generations to ponder.

Blogger R Devere January 27, 2021 9:53 AM  

SSgt Snafui wrote:Did they just use defamatory statements to argue on why the case against them on defamation should be dismissed..?


Hence the Times' claim that the latter piece is an OPINION piece.

You can say almost anything you want if you preface your statement with "In MY opinion..." Not sure any post hoc claim will suffice!

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2021 9:57 AM  

And still nobody uses Infogalactic...

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge January 27, 2021 10:04 AM  

Veritas has a wall full of retractions for all the times they were misquoted and falsely reported.

If only it was legal to mount the reporters' heads.

Hopefully soon enough.

Blogger Isolden January 27, 2021 10:12 AM  

@13 Amen Brother! Me as well. I've always felt to each his own as long as you leave me and mine alone, recognizing that everyone should be heard and treated equally. Screw that, now - they are never going to leave us alone. I dislike it that it's a victory for them, they turned me into one of them, but if this is what they want, so be it - I will be fighting harder.

Blogger Barbarossa January 27, 2021 10:15 AM had a reputation for publishing deceptively-edited videos...

Only we're allowed to do that!


The Mainstream Media

Blogger nswhorse January 27, 2021 10:17 AM  

I like seeing these scum trapped by their own arrogance. What made them think that someone like O'Keefe would just cop the smears and slink away? It will be beautiful to see them fund Veritas' vital work.

Blogger Iron Spartan January 27, 2021 10:19 AM  

"That video was edited to make people look bad, its not real!"

"Here is the whole, raw, unedited footage. Tell me where the edits are."

"I don't have time for that, they are just liars!"

usually followed up by

"Its ok for ///Mainstream media organization/// to edit video of ///person accused of wrong think/// because they are just accentuating what we KNOW they are thinking."

Blogger xavier January 27, 2021 10:28 AM  

Another grovelling apology letter to be framed at the Hall of shame.

Blogger Br1cht January 27, 2021 10:47 AM  


Every video is edited to some degree so this is just the usual "lie with truth" tactic.

Blogger Leahn Novash January 27, 2021 10:47 AM  

Not sure about their roots, if they (((are))). Seen some stuff arguing for it, some arguing against. I can say that the Astor family is right up there with Rothschild on the conspiracy list of 13 families that control the world.

Blogger EpicTee January 27, 2021 10:50 AM  

I just watched James O'Keefe's video about this, and I must admit, what he outlines as to how they intend to see this right through, I had hoped I'd be seeing that with the whole Trump stuff as well. It's good to see more and more of this happening. I like to think it'll trickle down to us Joe normie's as well. And then you'll have the truth effect (and all things we attach to this) traveling both upstream and downstream. It may be a force that cannot be stopped once enough momentum is built up after a while. It gives me hope.

Blogger TMLutas January 27, 2021 10:55 AM  

The NY Times is relying in part on this being an opinion piece. But when you look at the thing, which you can find an archive of here:

the article is not marked as an opinion piece. This is deceptive itself and not a very complex issue. In state court, the piece is opinion. In the minds of the New York Times readership, that was a news piece and you can tell from how it was used elsewhere that everyone was treating it as a news piece. This is a fraud problem that stays within the letter of the law and thus isn't correctable in court.

This is an annoying tactic that the Daily Show used all the time people often referred to as "clown nose on, clown nose off". But here it's more serious because the Daily show's main representation of itself was a comedy channel show while the New York Times' representation of itself is the US' paper of record.

This is fixable. You just have to apply journalism, mark down everything the NY Times publishes, and ask them automatically whether it is news or opinion, then mark them as such in a database that can be queried. The default, up to the point where the NY Ties automates the process, is that anything it puts out is going to have the downgrade marker that the NY Times has not verified that this is a news piece and thus has gone through the NY Times fact checking process.

This is the sort of thing that you want to fund on a permanent basis via an endowment and apply it to all the MSM in whatever age.

Blogger WendyRaf January 27, 2021 10:58 AM  

If someone has time and editing permissions, the IG version is still the original Wiki version (Project Veritas redirects to James O'Keefe). It could use a rewrite to be less slanted.

Blogger SemiSpook37 January 27, 2021 11:05 AM  

The fact that they cited ONLY Wikipedia as a rebuttal tells me that Carlos Slim's paying way too much for his current legal counsel.

Blogger JWM in SD January 27, 2021 11:07 AM  

Meant to say "...will debunk the debunking lies..."

Blogger JWM in SD January 27, 2021 11:07 AM  

It looks like it.

Blogger Crunchy Cachalot January 27, 2021 11:10 AM  

Modren journalism, where going full retard isn't something to fear, it's a job requirement.

Blogger Unknown January 27, 2021 11:14 AM  

The New York Times law firm cited to wiki in a court filing?

I did snort chuckle when I read that.

Blogger Crunchy Cachalot January 27, 2021 11:18 AM  

I'm no lawyer either, but "(and just about everywhere else)" is the very essence of "unnamed", indeed "unnameable", sources, and is possibly a defamatory statement in their motion to dismiss a defamation suit.

Blogger Krymneth January 27, 2021 11:46 AM  

It sounds like another filing intended more for public consumption than legal effect, to me.

Seems like I've been seeing a lot of that lately.

"Unnamed" sources isn't necessarily a problem for a lawsuit, because the legal system can easily penetrate the veil of obscurity and have them testify under oath even so, so while that objection may play well to the general public, it seems pretty legally absurd to me, unless Project Veritas suddenly refuses to let them testify.

I do also love the "We've created a reputation for them as a far right wing journalism organization that frequently lies, so the court shouldn't hear their case because everyone knows they're a far right wing journalism organization that frequently lies!"

Blogger Off The Wall January 27, 2021 12:02 PM  

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:And still nobody uses Infogalactic...

Speaking of Infogalactic - whatever happened to the InfoSextant add-on for Brave? I really liked it on Chrome.

Blogger SC Rebel January 27, 2021 12:09 PM  

My favorite is “Studies show..”, but of course no studies are ever cited.

Blogger OneWingedShark January 27, 2021 12:10 PM  

Watchu talkin bout Willis wrote:I hope they get milked for every cent, then Project Veritas demolishes the NYT building, leaving the rubble intact in the heart of NY as a memorial for future generations to ponder.
Nonono, not a pile of ruble... a 30 foot tall statue of Kyle Rittenhouse.
And a plaque reading: "Defend your community from violence and lies."

Blogger Jeroth January 27, 2021 12:13 PM  

Get enough social justice hires in the legal system, and far less than wikipedia will be considered as proof before long.

Blogger DramavilleKC January 27, 2021 12:14 PM  

I know! How many anti Trump/libertarian/conservative hit pieces have they ran using "unamed sources".

Blogger M In The 517 January 27, 2021 12:16 PM  


The absolute fuck is that supposed to mean?

("Fuck you, peons! I didn't go to fucking Columbia errrrrr Barnyard just so I'd actually have to discuss fact patterns and evidence with these flyover-country goyim!!!", the precious Jewish-American Princess Maggie wrote in her Gratitude Journal.)

I noted this in AC's comment section yesterday:

They have officially become as pathetic as Claude Elsinore jabbering in the witness stand about time stamps on surveillance videos.

Blogger JOE January 27, 2021 12:17 PM  

Maybe for an encore they can cite Mad Magazine, or even Cracked.

Blogger M In The 517 January 27, 2021 12:22 PM  

This is a very useful action item.

Blogger M In The 517 January 27, 2021 12:30 PM  

Just take a gander at fat-faced Maggie and make an educated guess which side of the ((())) spectrum she falls into.

Blogger Nostromo January 27, 2021 12:43 PM  

I've been hearing "I don't care.
I just want to be left alone" from our side forever. About the time the mighty Kenyan appeared I have been replying, "You will be made to care. These people will not stop until they are dead." When you see it coming from a mile away, and yet no one will listen to you.

Blogger van helsing January 27, 2021 1:01 PM  

it's afraid

Blogger berb2000 January 27, 2021 1:26 PM  

"Mister O'keefe, I am an expert in bird law...."

Blogger Unknown January 27, 2021 1:33 PM  

You know, some people are afraid of us getting enslaved by the antichrist and whatnot.
But THIS is his team.
THESE people are his people.

No wonder his reign will only last 7 years, what a bunch of bundles of faggy sticks.

Blogger CM January 27, 2021 1:42 PM  

The "everybody knows so-and-so is such-and-such" defense is about as idiotic as citing Wikipedia.

It was stupid before they got to the Wikipedia source. They were just looking for something that confirms their pre-existing bias. A bias that exists solely from prejudice and bigotry.

That the prejudiced and bigoted Wikipedia confirms their bias doesn’t justify their opinion because Wikipedia is hardly independent from the liberal propaganda machine.

Blogger M In The 517 January 27, 2021 2:43 PM  


Perhaps drag out an old copy of Spy while they're at it.

Blogger Crunchy Cachalot January 27, 2021 3:09 PM  

@41 - Get Infogalactic Transporter from the Web Store. It does the same thing.

Blogger map January 27, 2021 4:30 PM

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos January 27, 2021 4:40 PM  

Defama-ception! It would be sweet if, after the trial had concluded, Veritas sues NYT again for defamatory statements made during the trial. Could the Times defend themselves without lying?

Blogger Legionnaire Bear January 27, 2021 5:02 PM  

I suspect the term ".. debunked conspiracy theory" and or "Bizarre conspiracy theory" are completely losing all potency. Just as "nazi" has lost all meaning along with "white supremacist", if everything is a bizarre conspiracy theory then nothing is a conspiracy theory.

Blogger Jack Amok January 27, 2021 5:58 PM  

So, the defense against defamation is to claim other people said defamatory things about the plaintiff, so you figured you could just pile on?

Blogger tublecane January 27, 2021 8:25 PM  

Are there other explanations for “extreme departure from professional standards” besides malice?

Stupidity, I suppose. Just general unprofessionalism? Something short of malice, like almost-malice?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts