- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,349
- Reaction score
- 6,037
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Colin Kalmbacher said:Liberal media mainstay The New York Times recently published a story about a progressive congressional candidate that, based on the available evidence, appears to have intentionally misrepresented the candidate’s views. Because of this apparent and alleged (by the candidate) misrepresentation, the publication and the author of that article could be subject to a false light tort claim in California.
On Friday, December 13, the Times published Jennifer Medina‘s story headlined “Bernie Sanders Retracts Endorsement of Cenk Uygur After Criticism.” The piece was largely a recitation of the online controversy that swirled after the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate endorsed–and then quickly un-endorsed–Uygur’s anti-establishment campaign to replace former congresswoman Katie Hill in California’s 25th Congressional District due to the candidate’s readily-accessible history of shock jock-style commentary and more.
One portion of that article stood out to many commentators as an egregious misrepresentation of what Uygur has said via The Young Turks show and TYT Network, which he owns and operates. Medina’s story references a confrontational interview Uygur conducted with well-known racist, conspiracy theorist, onetime Republican elected official and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.
Could Cenk Uygur Sue the New York Times? | Law & Crime
I read the referenced piece myself; it's a pretty cut and dry hatchet job. Pretty sad that the once laudable NYT has been reduced to featuring this sort of naked partisan propaganda, now leveraged against progressive politicos.
Could Cenk Uygur Sue the New York Times? | Law & Crime
I read the referenced piece myself; it's a pretty cut and dry hatchet job. Pretty sad that the once laudable NYT has been reduced to featuring this sort of naked partisan propaganda, now leveraged against progressive politicos.
There is no evidence of that.The New York Times has a long history of defamation. Remember, it was NYT v Sullivan that established that media outlets can defame public figures with near total impunity.
Could Cenk Uygur Sue the New York Times? | Law & Crime
I read the referenced piece myself; it's a pretty cut and dry hatchet job. Pretty sad that the once laudable NYT has been reduced to featuring this sort of naked partisan propaganda, now leveraged against progressive politicos.
Could Cenk Uygur Sue the New York Times? | Law & Crime
I read the referenced piece myself; it's a pretty cut and dry hatchet job. Pretty sad that the once laudable NYT has been reduced to featuring this sort of naked partisan propaganda, now leveraged against progressive politicos.
I despise both Uyger and the NYT, but I agree it's a hatchet job.
An actionable hatchet job?
It seems unlikely.
He already has a huge uphill battle in his race and I don't think getting into a legal fight with New York Times would help him. It's probably the right move though as it seems fairly cut and dry and he isn't likely to survive the primary.
It certainly seems actionable under the California false light legislation per the linked legal analysis; I think the question is more should Cenk go after them.
It's a pretty silly exchange to be sure, but he's definitely not advocating or campaigning for bestiality, legal or otherwise, nor has this been a pattern of behaviour.
I intended to imply successfully actionable; I think the question is how much time & money does this creature want to squander?
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being a fantastically popular & sympathetic plaintiff with an ironclad case, and 1 being a bog creature like Uygur with weak sauce like this, I'd rate his likelihood of success at about 0.
And frankly, I'm being generous.
A perfect example of why this sub-Trump half-wit has 0 chance of prevailing against the almost equally odious NYT.
Actually, he IS advocating for bestiality, and very clearly.
But he has kind of a sub-human vibe, so I get it.
:shrug:
Again, per the analysis, it's not really weaksauce per those California laws. It's definitely and reasonably actionable regardless of your opinion of Cenk. Personally I wouldn't advocate trying though, as it's not worth the time and resources when he's trying to win a political race.
Cenk's intellect exceeds Trump's by orders of magnitude easily. I'm not sure how him being ridiculous in a segment amounts to him having no chance.
It's an absurd one off conversation he had; I don't read much into it; everyone says stupid **** eventually. Cenk clearly has no platform on the matter, and I have no doubt his personal opinion is currently far removed from that spur of the moment nonsense.
NYT has been nothing more than a propaganda rag for decades, probably pre-dating Judith Miller's nonsense in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. NYT is merely a cheerleader for military aggression.
Could Cenk Uygur Sue the New York Times? | Law & Crime
I read the referenced piece myself; it's a pretty cut and dry hatchet job. Pretty sad that the once laudable NYT has been reduced to featuring this sort of naked partisan propaganda, now leveraged against progressive politicos.
He'd have to prove actual malice. He won't be able to.
He'd have to prove actual malice. He won't be able to.
INCREDIBLY weak sauce, to put it kindly. Zero chance of success if pursued. Personally, I hope he does pursue it; he can impoverish himself and yet again expose the NYT as the fraud it is; win/win.
Both are quite smart, dishonest and crude, but Uygur is much creepier. Is he being ridiculous? (Regardless, it paints a picture of a man with little regard for a proper public image.)
I didn't perceive it as absurd, but rather profoundly creepy and ethically unhinged; Uygur mouths stupid **** constantly it would seem. Better not to have advocated for the grotesque abuse of animals, platform or no; I have no idea what his personal opinion is, but I doubt it's far from unhinged and odious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?