That's hard to prove.
The people who broke the story could say that they just related what the accusers told them.
The others in the media who repeated the story can say that they just relied on what those who broke the story already wrote.
The forged yearbook is easily proved; she admitted she changed - added to - the inscription. Reckless disregard for the truth on any individual case is difficult, tho the WaPo did not do due diligence on the yearbook forgery.The people who broke the story could say that they just related what the accusers told them.
They have an obligation to due diligence when they put forward their story as true. Failure to do that is reckless indifference to the truth.The others in the media who repeated the story can say that they just relied on what those who broke the story already wrote.
That’s what they think. That is the advantage of the Sherman route - you charge them (quite accurately) with collusion while putting out the fairy tale that they are independent. You sue them as a single entity. That is what in fact they are.People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe anti-society, pro-government bias of journalism is "conspiracy against the public” predicted by Adam Smith when people of the trade of journalism “meet together” - not merely for "merriment and diversion” but precisely about what they agree is and what is not news.