Palin sues The NY Times

[water505]

The slimy, corrupt media can't get out of its own way. The Times is becoming the National Enquirer.

 

[phrodeau]

Thanks for your in-depth analysis, Mr. Onion.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The slimy, corrupt media can't get out of its own way. The Times is becoming the National Enquirer.

They'll have to beat the WaPo and CNN to get there...

 

[Libsam]

I bet mainstream media regrets sending out that Fake News talking point memo.
That shit got turned around on them quick!

 

[FakeNews]

The media will do anything to bash Trump — and now they’re hurting

In the sixth month of Donald Trump’s presidency, we are witnessing an unprecedented meltdown of much of the media. Standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.

What started as bias against him has become a cancer that is consuming the best and brightest. In rough biblical justice, media attempts to destroy the president are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.

He accuses them of publishing fake news, and they respond with such blind hatred that they end up publishing fake news. That’ll show him.

CNN is suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.

For all its bravado, the network might be having doubts about its course. Its apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/27/the-media-will-do-anything-to-bash-trump-and-now-theyre-hurting/

 

[BoyNextDoor]

 

[Disgustipated]

miles had one of those made except his reads, "HUSBAND OF THE YEAR".

 

[water505]

Thanks for your in-depth analysis, Mr. Onion.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but you're welcome Mr. Potato Head.

You never get tired of being a jerkoff, do you?

 

[water505]

Typical responses from the Litlosers.

Their leftist world is turning to shit. They've been conned. All they have left is personal attacks. Normal people might at least consider they may have been wrong. Not you clowns...you're going to ride it out.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Sarah got a nice shot in, however:

The editorial was published online on June 14, the day a gunman opened fire at a baseball field where Republican lawmakers were practicing for an annual charity game. The editorial said there was a link between political incitement and the mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded Representative Gabby Giffords and said that Ms. Palin’s “political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.

Ms. Palin said in the lawsuit that The Times’s response “did not approach the degree of the retraction and apology necessary and warranted by The Times’s false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited murder.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/sarah-palin-sues-new-york-times.html

Sorry, sweetie, but I don't think there is a legal standard that defines the "necessary and warranted" degree of retraction owed to you by the New York Times.

 

[Disgustipated]

Typical responses from the Litlosers.

Their leftist world is turning to shit. They've been conned. All they have left is personal attacks. Normal people might at least consider they may have been wrong. Not you clowns...you're going to ride it out.

The Enquirer was nominated for the Pulitzer for investigative journalism. I know you're used to it but...

STFU, miles.

 

[Libsam]

Sarah got a nice shot in, however:



Sorry, sweetie, but I don't think there is a legal standard that defines the "necessary and warranted" degree of retraction owed to you by the New York Times.

At this point it doesn't really matter how the courts rule, it's all about character assassination. I'm glad she's giving 'em a taste of their own medicine!