
How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court (1991) - exolymph
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/04/news/how-the-supermarket-tabloids-stay-out-of-court.html?smid=tw-share
======
guelo
What's ironic about Thiel attacking Gawker for, supposedly, being bad tabloid
journalists is that as a Trump delegate he is supporting someone that has
frequently polluted our highest political discourse with tabloid-level
internet conspiracy theories. To Thiel personal smears are more troublesome
than a well functioning democracy. But then he has in the past already
expressed his contempt of democracy so I guess it should not come as a
surprise.

~~~
pm24601
Thiel's approach is scary. He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win
- he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out
of business.

Many major stories that made it big in the national news start off as a local
or small paper doing the initial reporting. (For example the Flint, Mi lead
water) These papers have such tiny budgets that they can easily be silenced.

~~~
chimeracoder
> He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume
> enough of a media company's money to force them out of business

That's theoretically true - after all, it's the same way patent trolling
works. But he hasn't actually proven that yet, since he _did_ win a juried
verdict (with punitive damages, on top of that).

That's about as clear-cut a decision as our legal system can provide (before
getting to the appellate level).

~~~
PlainsWight
To be fair, this is the only one of his suits against Gawker that he's
disclosed having funded, so it's quite difficult to judge their overall
merits.

------
0xcde4c3db
The tabloid CYA trick that jumped out the most to me -- sometimes directly
visible on the covers -- is to attribute an allegation to "Source" (often in
much smaller print than the allegation itself, unsurprisingly). For all I
know, that "source" could be an anonymous letter from one of their own
employees.

~~~
lmg643
I think another trick of longstanding tabloids like the enquirer is that they
almost deliberately undermine their reputation by publishing a lot of crap
(aliens, etc) while mixing the better sourced stuff that causes celebrities
fits. I think this is how they have been able to exist for so long -
celebrities with thicker skin can laugh it off, hah, those crazy tabloids -
and far less often we see someone actually try to sue the tabloids for an
article.

example of "real" news being broken by a tabloid:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair)

With regards to the Gawker case - I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter
that Peter Thiel funded the lawsuits. If it were a more "noble" cause
(litigation against polluters, cigarette manufacturers, civil rights etc) then
no one would question massive outside funding. And, Gawker did lose the case
in court, on the case's merits. Gawker seems to be hoping they can have it
overturned on appeal if they change the subject to Peter Thiel instead of
their own scummy behavior. Not to mention Nick Denton's shady tax evasion
while criticizing tech businesses for the same:

[https://pando.com/2014/07/25/gawker-no-longer-even-trying-
to...](https://pando.com/2014/07/25/gawker-no-longer-even-trying-to-pretend-
its-not-grotesquely-hypocritical-on-tax/)

------
shawkinaw
I can't believe the standard for libel is so high. You can publish anything
you want as long as you are stupid or ignorant enough to believe it?

~~~
tokenadult
That's NOT exactly the legal standard. Before the separation of the American
colonies from Britain to form the United States, there was already a defense
of truth to libel claims. Say what is true, and libel is not much of a worry
to you. (But you can say true things and still be civilly liable for
disclosure of trade secrets, or for harming a person's "right to publicity,"
depending on the facts of a case, and you can be criminally liable for
espionage or the like.)

After the independence of the United States, United States law on defenses
against libel claims developed some more, so that press reporting about public
officials (especially) and even "public figures" (people who are already well
known in public activities) can be protected even if reporters make false
statements by mishap. For public officials, since my early childhood, the
standard has been that "actual malice" (which doesn't exactly mean malice, but
complete disregard for attempts to check the factual statements) has to be
shown for a journalist to be liable for libel. In some other countries
(notably Singapore), libel law can be used to suppress dissent. United States
courts have not wanted libel law to work that way.

The practices of tabloid journalists, of course, are despicable, and they are
examples of abusing legal precedents originally meant to protect more factual
and more fair journalism.

[http://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-
faqs](http://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-faqs)

~~~
kragen
My very limited experience with regular journalism and tabloid journalism is
that tabloid journalists are scrupulously factual and accurate, while regular
journalists more or less write whatever they want without much regard to
whether it is true or even coherent. This makes a great deal of sense if you
think about the environment of legal risk in which the respective categories
of journalists exist: regular journalists are essentially engaged in
stenography for the powerful, flattery for everyone, and providing readers
with the cheap illusion that they understand things they don't; meanwhile,
tabloid journalists are engaged in viciously attacking the famous.

In short, where you write "protect more factual and more fair journalism", you
should have written "protect less factual and more favorable journalism".

~~~
CDRdude
>tabloid journalists are scrupulously factual and accurate, while regular
journalists more or less write whatever they want without much regard to
whether it is true or even coherent

Do we exist in the same universe? When I visit the National Enquirer website,
the current headline is "Hillary Clinton Caught With Lesbian Lovers".
Meanwhile, the headline on the New York Times is "Cam Trump Win? Here Are the
Decisive Battlegrounds".

~~~
ajoy39
In the span of about 3 weeks the National Enquirer said that Prince died of
Suicide, Accidental Drug Overdose, Aids, and Suicide because of Aids. The Same
publication declared 3 separate causes of death for the same person in back to
back to back issues, and yet people still read and believe this fucking
garbage.

------
cft
I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's
case.

~~~
gruez
there's a difference between publishing gossip and publishing someone else's
sex tape.

~~~
cft
"Mr. Chieffo, a veteran entertainment lawyer, usually responds with what he
calls "the facts of life" in the never-ending battle between these
publications and the famous people". Why

1\. That Hogan had sex with his friend's wife

2\. That he was taped

are not "facts of life"?

~~~
jdminhbg
Don't think the issue is that Gawker reported that Hogan was taped having sex
with his friend's wife.

~~~
chimeracoder
No, the issue is that they literally wrote a headline bragging about ignoring
a court order to take it down[0].

Whether or not the lawsuit itself was justified (though the jury ultimately
did thing so), it's pretty stupid to ignore a court order. It's even more
appalling to brag about it the way they did. Quite frankly, they kind of got
off easy, since the consequences could have been a _lot_ worse. People
literally go to jail for behavior like that. Look at Kim Davis, who was jailed
for contempt.

[0] [http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-
hoga...](http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-
tape-po-481328088)

~~~
dingo_bat
I don't understand. Why did gawker fight for this? Was there any big ideal
behind it or just for the lulz? I can understand if it was the President
instead of hulk Hogan, but it's just a private individual in his private
premises doing perfectly legal things. Why would you publish this and then
fight the judicial system over it?

