Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
NEW YORK (AP) — A jury determined on Tuesday that The New York Times did not defame former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin regarding a mistake made in a 2017 editorial that Palin claims harmed her reputation.
After deliberating for approximately two hours, the jury reached its conclusion following the closing arguments from both Palin’s legal team and the newspaper’s representatives at a civil trial in federal court in Manhattan that is currently in its second week.
Palin testified on Monday that following the publication of an editorial on gun violence, she faced an increase in death threats and a decline in her emotional well-being. The article linked her political action committee to violent political rhetoric.
The New York Times issued a correction less than 14 hours after the editorial went live.
Kenneth Turkel, Palin’s attorney, urged the jury to hold the Times accountable for defamation, arguing that the editorial page editor, James Bennet, either knew the content was false or acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
He requested that the jury award compensatory damages for the injury to Palin’s reputation and the emotional distress she suffered, emphasizing the need for “closure” after what he termed a lack of accountability.
“To this day, there has been no accountability,” he stated. “That’s why we’re here.”
Turkel cautioned jurors against being misled by Palin’s seemingly cheerful demeanor on the witness stand.
“She doesn’t cry a lot,” Turkel remarked. “To them, it may have appeared as an honest mistake. For her, it was life-altering.”
Palin, who possesses a degree in journalism, filed her lawsuit against the Times in 2017, nearly ten years after she gained national attention as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
The lawsuit arose from an editorial concerning gun control that followed a 2017 shooting incident that injured U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise during a Congressional baseball practice, conducted by an individual known for anti-Republican sentiments.
In the editorial, the Times asserted that Palin’s political action committee contributed to a culture of violence by sharing a map targeting electoral districts that included Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs prior to the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely injured former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and claimed six lives.
In its correction, the Times acknowledged that it “incorrectly stated” a connection between political discourse and the 2011 shooting and that the map had been “incorrectly described.”
Bennet, who appeared emotional during his testimony, expressed regret to Palin, indicating he was deeply distressed by the mistake and had acted promptly to rectify the issue once it became apparent following feedback from readers.
Felicia Ellsworth, representing the Times, argued that the jury could not find the newspaper or Bennet liable because there was no evidence to suggest that the error was the result of intentional misconduct by the editorial team.
“There has not been a shred of evidence proving anything but an honest mistake,” she stated.
Ellsworth highlighted that the Times took immediate action to correct the record once the mistake was discovered and noted that several Times editors consistently testified to the commitment to rectifying inaccuracies. In contrast, Palin’s allegations were based primarily on her own assertions.
Moreover, she pointed out that, as a public figure, it was essential for the jury to find “actual malice” in order to rule in Palin’s favor.
“To Governor Palin, this is just another chance to confront perceived fake news. For James Bennet, the truth is of utmost importance,” Ellsworth noted.
In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed Palin’s claims while jury deliberations were ongoing. The judge allowed the jury to deliver their verdict, which ultimately aligned with the dismissal.
This trial follows the revival of the case by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which ruled last year that Rakoff’s dismissal had overstepped into the jury’s domain. The appeals court cited various deficiencies in the preceding trial, including erroneous evidence exclusions and issues with jury instructions.
Source
www.yahoo.com