Could John Conyers file libel suit against Dana Milbank and Wash Post?

[shance]

George Galloway hit back hard at the tabloids and papers which falsely accused Galloway and slandered his name.

I believe he filed suit and won.

What can be done here in America? Good leaders and good people are being abused, their lives forever affected/some ruined because of ammoral individuals who don't seem to care that they are committing huge acts of betrayals on so many levels which has so many negative effects on Americans, our ethical structure, and our Democracy at large.

There need to be legal ways to make papers more accountable.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Jesus

Everyone wants to sue.

Get a grip.

Laws in England are different.

Now, go do something constructive instead of dreaming litigation.

[shance]

3. Wow. You sound so much like a Bush administration official.

Old leftie lawyer?

Doubt it.

Thanks for the incredibly helpful and positive response.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Tsk, tsk

So, someone who sets you straight sounds "like a Bush administration official"?

Thank you, though. Your impotent little barb made everyone here laugh.

[Just Me]

38. Excuse me. It doesn't take LL to know this suggestion is implausible.

The article was manipulative, clearly. The article is additional proof that there are tenacles of government control over the media producing such grotesque propaganda.

However, that article contained nothing near "libel and slander".

Anyone pushing such a ridiculous assertion is being, well, silly.

Why take WHAT IS (additional proof of government inspired propaganda) and turn it into a baseless cause of action?

Makes my head hurt.

[shance]

40. Hi Justme. Are you an attorney?

Im curious to know what your experience and education is on legal matters such as tort law and/or civil litigation, primarily due to the unflinching assertion you made stating the Milbank article contains nothing "near libel and slander".

Im curious how would you know that?

Again, are you an attorney?

Another question, are you Congressman Conyers?

How might you experience reading such distortion and deception if you were John Conyers reading this article from the most powerful newspaper within the city in which you reside as a Congressional leader?

In addition, we could run down the diatribe of bogus cases brought to court throughout American history which have been tried and people have been convicted for much, MUCH lesser crimes.

Im glad you appear to be a stalwart judge and expert on the proper ingredients of legitimate legal matters and feel compelled to condemn those of us who are looking at options and ways to stop the continuous assaults, slander and lies being promoted against our best Democratic leaders.

I guess you would tolerate this condescending, demoralizing response from a writer if you had taken on a courageous and bold stance like Conyers, and write it off as being one of those bad bad people who isn't a very nice person and we have to keep away from them. The problem is journalists like this who appear bought and paid for are now being considered mainstream. Do you think that by ignoring such attacks and harmful inaccurate distortions by so called writers, that it will make situations like this disappear? On the contrary, we have gotten to this place with those who own the media because we have allowed them to take things over and dumb down our country by our own laziness and cowardice.

Im impressed how Conyers jumped on this situation with a reply. That in and of itself was statesmenlike and saavy.



I tend to believe after hearing of various victories through legal action that positive change could very much be gained from winning a lawsuit against unethical media spokesmen and/or hack journalists that clearly are engaging in conflicts of interest as well as, not to be too repetitive, potential "libel".

Im not saying, nor did I ever blindly state the absolute necessity and/or even the validity of a law suit. However, Im not "silly" enough to stand on the side lines as so many Democrats are prone to do, shaming other Dems who venture out and look for options, and at the same time seeking permission and approval by Republicans and/or those in power to do something.

[Warpy]

12. Kerry was stupid not to sue

Yes, the laws in England are different, making it easier for celebs to sue.

However, winning the case wasn't the important thing. Slapping those smear boaters and Regenery Publishing with a lawsuit the day that book came out would have accomplished two important things: it would have given Kerry's lawyers (rabid, I hope) subpoena power and it would have tied up their resources while making transfer of laundered RNC money much, much more difficult.

Those were the points.

Since he was STUPID STUPID STUPID and didn't sue, they went about their rotten business unchecked. Since he didn't sue, the malicious right feel they have carte blanche to libel, and the current scurrilous release accusing Chelsea Clinton of being the product of spousal rape is the outcome.

You HAVE to sue these assholes, and winning isn't always the point.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. Again

Public figures are held to a different standard. You don't know what you're saying. Sorry, but Kerry, as a public figure and as a lawyer, knew that litigation was not possible for him.

It makes me sad, as a litigator for almost thirty years, to watch the devolution of our country into something where everything thinks "sue, sue, sue" is the solution. It's as if our education system has failed on the most basic level. And, believe me, litigation has been very lucrative for me.

But, still, watching the changes these past three decades, I have been forced to the conclusion that Americans are less and less informed with each passing year.

Go read NY Times v. Sullivan. http://tinyurl.com/dwggn You'll learn something.

And, while you're at it, go read the First Amendment. http://tinyurl.com/bom2 It's one of my favorites.

[ProudDad]

19. The First Amendment

is my favorite too.

I hope someday it will be completely implemented.

It'll definitely takes some self-discipline among the population, that is, everyone must allow everyone else to voice their opinions (no matter how "stupid" or "wrong") and it's up to us to take the responsibility to sort it all out.

Also, one shouldn't try to get all of their truth from the "mass media" or get too upset over what those dildos say. They are in the business of;

1) Making Money
2) Making Money
3) MAKING MONEY

Any truths that come out of the for profit media is an accident, not a product of the exercise.

:-)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

25. Exactly

It's a business, not a religion, so don't put too much value on what the "media" has to offer.

Come to think of it, I don't put much value on what religion has to offer, either.

You nailed it - the most hateful speech requires the most vigilant protection. Sometimes I see otherwise good people turn into the most intolerant tyrants because someone else's opinion doesn't fit in with theirs, and the resulting hijinks are deplorable.

Here's to you, ProudDad: :toast:

[Warpy]

35. Again, WINNING WAS NOT THE POINT!!!!!

Read the WHOLE POST.

Thanks.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. I did

I said nothing about winning.

Now, read my whole post.

And don't hurt yourself with those exclamation points.

[napi21]

2. Probably not. Most of what you see in the paper is opinion.

You can't sure someone for their opinion. Other items are reports, but usually sourced through AP, Reuters, etc. Beside that, public officials can't sue when someone disagrees with them, or calls them names they don't like.

[shance]

6. Is that how they get away with printing inaccuracies?

By calling it "opinion"?

[Internut]

17. The only inaccuracy that I saw in that article

was stating that Conyers was the only one who ever mentioned the memo on the House floor. A few more Congressmen did mention it on the floor as well.

Can you point out any more inaccuracies? There is a slant in the article, no doubt, but how is it factually incorrect?

[shance]

20. I think the best place to find the distortions and inaccuracies

are well-documented and expressed in Mr. Conyer's letter. I have attached the majority of the letter below. The thing I find most disturbing, is not merely the inaccuracies, but the overall misleading direction the article takes to intentionally smear and invalidate the hearing yesterday which was being called regarding the subject of this Administration intentionally lying and taking our nation to war.

Yesterdays meeting addressed the actions by the Bush Administration which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals, including our troops and essentially destroyed a country. How does one say "Im sorry" for such an act? This subject is the most important issue facing our country and our future right now.

That is why I believe Milbank's article and the Washington Post's response to the hearing is probably worthy of a law suit. I don't need to but I will remind that the hearing revolved around a subject that pertains to the overall betrayal of trust by individuals abusing the Office of the Presidency. Again, the result has been HUNDREDS of thousands of needless people being killed and murdered. Milbank's agenda apparently was to distract the readers from the sobering facts and mislead and misdirect the public into looking in a different direction. It's something so obvious to a reader, it can't be dismissed as a simple mistake. It was agenda driven to willingly mislead, misinterpret, and discredit Congressman Conyers and the hearings overall.

Here is the body of Conyer's letter.


In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.

<< In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.>>

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so.
Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

<<In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.>>

To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."

By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.

Sincerely,

[Internut]

22. I read the letter and except for the inaccuracy

that I originally pointed to, it does not show any others.

As I said, the article definitely has its slant. But in order to be "libel" it has to be factually incorrect. Can you point to any more inaccuracies?

[shance]

26. Definition of libel: statement or anything that brings discredit on a

person or thing.

That definition is from Oxfords Dictionary.

My original post posed the question of the potential viability of a law suit against the Post and/or Milbank.

I am not married to the term 'libel', although I think an argument could be made that the overall intent of the article was definitely designed to inflict harm and "damage a person's reputation" (also a definition in Oxfords).

My greater question is if there is an article that seems to have malicious intent that distorts and discredits a person or thing, when does an individual and/or group of individuals have a case and when do they not have a case. It is not acceptable in any realm for any press to be totally immune from accountability.

At some point the press and media have gone across the line of negligence (a damaging enough charge) to complicity.

[Internut]

27. Truthful statements

cannot be libel, although they may bring discredit on a person. True or false?

[shance]

28. Distortions and misleading statements are not truthful. True or False?

Lies can come in many forms: omission, embellishment, intent.

All shapes and sizes.

True to answer your question, but we're not talking truthful statements. Deliberately misleading someone does not constitute a truthful statement.

[Internut]

31. There is absolutely no way you can win

(or even have it considered without being thrown out as frivolous) a libel court case if you cannot point out at lies in the article in question. "Spin" just doesn't do it.

The Conyers forum was not an official House hearing. It did not have subpoena powers, etc. etc. That is true, and cannot be argued. The slant that the article puts on this fact is not pro-Democratic, to say the least, but the facts are correct.

[shance]

33. When does something become libelous? How many "lies" does it take

to then become libel?

Again, the Oxford Definition states " a statement or anything that brings discredit on a person or thing". That's pretty broad.

[Internut]

34. According to the Oxford definition,

if I say that Scott Peterson murdered his wife, that is libelous. Yes, it is broad - to the point of uselessness.

[onenote]

23. yes it was slanted/distorted, but how was it libelous

Apart from the factual inaccuracy about the number of members who had commented on the DSM on the floor of the House/Senate, what else was factually inaccurate. Suing the WaPo won't do a damn thing but waste money. If I thought the suit itself would bring attention to the DSM it might be worth it, even though its guaranteed loser of a suit, but at best the suit would get a minute's worth of publicity before it was dismissed, at which point the story wouldn't be about the merits of the DSM hearing, it would be about how the Post was vindicated in its reporting.

Rather than piss away money on hopeless cause lawsuit, Conyers should spend it on getting the word out about the DSM through ads, etc.

onenote

[shance]

30. Lies aren't simply "factual inaccuracies" my friend.

Apparently you disagree with a lawsuit, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with my post.

In addition, its pretty arrogant of you to boldly claim that a lawsuit "won't do a damn thing".

How in the hell do you know?

[napi21]

18. Well, I can tell you about an experience I lived through!

In the early 90's some well connected opposition to our company dropped a 'rumor" to CNBC that we were dealing with the MAfia, sending illigal product to the international market and cooking the books. (None of this was true and that was proven after 6 long years of Gov't investigations!)

Well, there was a program on CNBC at noon every day whose anchor prided himself in getting inside dirt on anyone he could. (Kind of like Drudge is now.) I still remember how he started the story. "Word on the street has it that ......."

Our COO was angrier than anyone I've ever seen, and he wasn't a meek and mild creature to begin with. He contact our attorneys and was yelling "I want to sue those SBO's! I want that XXXX off the air!" We had some the best attorneys in the US, and the final determination was "Because he said word on the street, and didn't state his words as FACT, sorry, you can't do anything!"

I've never forgetten that day. The guy who originally started the rumor was the owner of one of our competitors, and although we could never prove it, information travels fast inside any group of manufacturers of a similar product line.

That TV announcement triggered a 6 year long investigation by every Gov't Dept I ever heard of, both State and Federal. The final result was there was no wrong doing by our company, but it was the worst nightmare of my life, and ultimately forced the company into bankruptcy and out of business.

[shance]

21. Im so sorry to hear that. I do admire your company fighting though.

If you could do it over again, would you do the same thing?

[napi21]

37. If I had it to do over again I would quit at the first hint of an inquiry!

I was the Director of Accounting, and I was the one who had to receive all the subpoenas and dig up all the ancient records to answer them. After six years of that shit, I was let go.

I was on Paxil for a while, and went through a long period of depression.

Anyone who reads this might take a bit of advise into consideration. Think about leaving immediately! It doesn't matter what you do or how hard you work to keep your company and its execs out of trouble, when they think they don't need you anymore, you're history. It's not worth it. What something like this does to you mentaly, physicaly, and personaly really isn't worth the cost.

[Lone_Wolf]

39. Maybe Conyer's has grounds for a "False Light" tort

There were obvious embellishment in the Milbank hit piece. Still it is probably a long shot...

"Invasion of Privacy: False light

False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.

Although this tort is similar to defamation, it is not the same. The report need not be defamatory to be actionable as false light. This type of invasion of privacy tends to occur when a writer condenses or fictionalizes a story, or uses stock footage to illustrate a news story.

False light includes embellishment (false material added to a story, which places someone in a false light), distortion (the arrangement of materials or photographs to give a false impression) and fictionalization (works of fiction containing disguised characters that represent real people or references to real people in fictitious articles). Some courts may consider works of fiction to be constitutionally protected expressions even if they contain characters who resemble, or clearly were based on, identifiable individuals known by the author or creator."

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html

[Straight Shooter]

4. I don't know what you're talking about.

Lawsuits are incredibly time-consuming. Conyers would look petty if he filed suit. The attention would turn to the lawsuit, rather than the issues Conyers is raising.

Dana Milbank is a tool of the * administration. Let it go. She's hopeless, Even if once in a while she breathes fresh air and writes coherently and objectively, she can't pull it together.

[Ken065]

5. Actually "she" is a "he"

as shown in this fugly mugshot with today's patronizing dumpload.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

[Straight Shooter]

11. Actually, you're right. Mea culpa.

I swear, I saw it on the Internets somewhere, a photo of Milbank as a lovely blonde woman. So, I did some research a few minutes ago. Yeah, Milbank is an ugly white man. Go figure.

:wtf:

[Karenina]

24. Whatever. Just weigh in.

[e-mail]

[montanacowboy]

7. PS Milbank is a SHE

[montanacowboy]

8. sorry edit, Milbank is a SHE...NOT

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Public figures

Go read Sullivan v NY Times, and note who the lawyers were.

Don't schools teach ANYTHING these days?

::: sigh ::::

[wurzel]

13. I e-mailed WP. We just can't afford that kind of reporting anymore.

This country can no longer afford the kind of reporting by Dana Milbank. Her article on the recent DSM hearing of Rep. Conyers was a misleading disgrace. It said nothing of the constraints put on these Congressmen by the Republican majority. Frankly, I'd rather see democracy exercised in a Congressional basement than not at all. The fact that is has been reduced to the basement is
hardly the fault of the Minority. A story about the shabby behavior of an increasingly arrogant Majority would have been more to the point. Starting with the location of the hearing and the unusual number of roll call votes scheduled to disrupt the hearing. Surely that alone would have alerted a real reporter that something smelled? It certainly warrants better than uninformed snide remarks about a group of Congressman trying to find out why we have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi people while losing over seventeen hundred of our own.

[NYCGirl]

15. Milbank is a HE. NT

[shance]

16. Nicely put Wurzel**Our country cannot afford anymore attacks on good

people doing the right thing, however subtle and/or thinly or thickly disguised the attacks may be.

It's a crime of assault, an immoral act when a journalist knowingly misleads and distorts important, life altering events and individuals actions. Americans have built up a resistance and tolerance to what is normally unacceptable behavior because the privatizers and the corporate media promote unacceptable behavior and consistently expose citizens to it, attempting to make it the norm when it is anything but the norm.

These days, most of corporate media are promoting immorality by allowing such wrongdoing and assaults to occur as if its legitimate journalism. Its what happens when those who don't have a ethical agenda take over our airwaves.

I think attacks like Milbanks should be approached as an assault because it most often has a similar affect on the ones being discredited or attacked, in this case, the troops and Americans at large, and of course the honorable Congressman Conyers, who has taken an unprecedented stand that deserves nothing less that the greatest praise and appreciation from all Americans.

Of course the biggest and potentially dangerous aspect to continuous acts of libel and slander by unprincipled/unethical writers is that they contribute and promote a climate in our country where individuals will become too intimidated and fearful of being ostracized to speak the truth.

That is the agenda of some. To indimidate, discredit and discourage people from doing what is right and speaking out against those abusing their power and privilege, which many have never deserved to begin with.

That is why its so important we support and defend any and all of us when we take a stand and speak the truth, especially when it's not popular with the bullies.

[wurzel]

29. I don't know if there was a time we could afford this kind of "reporting".

But looking at where we are today surely we can no longer afford the luxury of puerile reporting! Our country is in real trouble.

[shance]

32. Not sure if we can ever afford unecessary lies and dishonesty.

As if there are necessary lies and dishonesty***

I guess some would argue there is a time and a place.

However, history has shown us time and time again that civilizations lose their moral compass and ultimately their greatest power when lies become accepted and indeed, rewarded at times.