Just hours after Democrats got a bit excited at the prospect of House Speaker Dennis Hastert being investigated in the probe against William Jefferson (D - LA), it turns out that the story may have been completely false. So false, in fact, that Hastert is considering a lawsuit against ABC:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Speaker Dennis Hastert might sue ABC News for libel and defamation for a news report that said he was "in the mix" in a corruption investigation, according to a letter sent by Hastert's lawyer on Thursday.This is a continuing trend in reporting over the last few years: News media are jumping at stories, consistently basing themselves on anonymous sources, and then finding out later on that most of the story is in fact false. That the retractions and corrections usually go unnoticed is a seperate issue, as is the effect repeated false claims have no matter how clear the retractions are or how false they are proven.
The letter from Hastert counsel J. Randolph Evans said statements in ABC's report constitute libel and defamation, and asked who could "accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood."
Citing anonymous law enforcement sources, ABC News reported on Wednesday that Hastert was under scrutiny in an FBI corruption investigation centered around former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
ABC updated its story later to say Hastert was not a formal "target" or "subject" of the investigation, but was "in the mix."
Hastert's spokesman called the story "absolutely untrue" and demanded a retraction, and the Justice Department said the story was wrong.
At the Capitol, Hastert told Reuters: "They made an accusation. The Justice Department denied it."
How is it that media keep getting away with airing false stories? It is this jumping that will soon result in journalists being required to divulge sources on penalty of imprisonment on a consistent basis. Journalists have not been at all careful in what they report and how they verify it, and their assumption that people are covering up the real story will now get them in serious trouble. The Justice Department clearly stated the story was false - much as Verizon and AT&T did a week ago regarding the wiretap story. Did the reporter in this case not even ask the Justice Department? Obviously the Justice Department did not verify the story - did the reporter ask and get a denial? If so, why print it? If he or she did not ask, why not? Was getting the story out more important than verification?
Now, ABC might get sued. Assuming the story is false, as the Justice Department says, I hope they get sued and lose, and be required to pay huge fines. Perhaps journalists need a lesson in common sense and honesty.
Now, ABC might get sued. Assuming the story is false, as the Justice Department says, I hope they get sued and lose, and be required to pay huge fines.
ReplyDeleteNot likely. Hastert will have to show that the the story was not only false, but printed with malicious intent. Negligence (which you are suggesting) is not enough.
Libral media bias? What? No! huh? Umm .. NOWAY! If this a story about a prominent current democrat they would have triple and quadruple checked their facts.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that the only reason Bush's numbers are down so dramatically is because the media grains it into the general public head. If you say things enough time people start to feel like they are true, or at least get used to hearing it.
How many front page stories can they run on the NY Times hoping this time "they got him!" before regular folks are trained to not like the president or anyone on the right for that matter.
But then again, I'm sure this 'spheres resident lefties will come here right after me and say I'm wrong and that if anything somehow that media is biased against the left.
rose colors lenses indeed.
Not likely. Hastert will have to show that the the story was not only false, but printed with malicious intent. Negligence (which you are suggesting) is not enough.
ReplyDeleteGranted regarding the malicious intent. But I wonder if one could argue malicious intent regarding irresponsible reporting, such as what's happening in this case: Consider that the DOJ specifically said they were not investigating the Hastert - yet ABC reported that they were. Could irresponsibility be considered malicious, in the face of outright denials? I wonder.
Chaim - there was an article recently (wish I had the link) that argued that exact point. I've questioned the same for a while: By continually crying "Foul!" when there's a possibility of a story, and writing it in 'worst case scenario' style, it has been drummed into the head of every American that "Bush & Co. lie, cheat, and are wrong."
ReplyDeleteYet on nearly every major story, they've been right. This takes me back to my article from last year: When people look at Bush years down the line, he will be looked at as a great President when measured by his accomplishments.
Consider that the DOJ specifically said they were not investigating the Hastert - yet ABC reported that they were.
ReplyDelete1. The denials were issued after the story was issued.
2. The ABC report merely said that Hastert was "in the mix" and that a letter he wrote was a focus of the investigation. They never said that he was a target of the investigation.
3. The fact that DOJ issues a press release does not mean that the report is wrong. (Are you saying that the government announce to the world every time they are investigating someone? What areyou some kind of terrorist? ;-))
4. In any event, the lawyers letter sounds more like huffing and puffing than a real threat. Do you think Hastert's lawyer really doesn't know how to serve ABC?
1. That's part of my point in the post: Why wouldn't they ask the DOJ?
ReplyDelete2. They at first said he was a target, then changed it to "in the mix".
3. Heh. :P But in all seriousness, I find it highly unlikely that they would issue a straight denial unless it were true. They could have easily said, "We don't comment on pending investigations."
4. It does sound like huffing and puffing, but there's no rush. It could be they're trying to find out more about ABC's sources before they sue. It's not simple, as you pointed out in your first comment, to prove malicious intent in a libel case. They may be trying to determine just how ABC went about their own investigative work, and if they could show a serious disregard for protocol.
Clarify (1) "Why didn't ABC ask the DOJ in the first place? Why was the first statement from the DOJ their own denial after the report? Shouldn't ABC have gotten the DOJ's statement on their own beforehand?"
ReplyDelete