>> he fact that Jerry was talking lawsuit didn't
>> have anything to do with this?
> That and, judging from their recent layoffs, the Times
> doesn't have the cash to pay lawyers to tie this up.
However, the Ombud's op-ed does not necessarily rise to
the standard of a retraction, much less an apology, and
it's clear that officially, the NYT is standing by, that
is, repeating the libel. In fact, it hurts the NYT's
posture, since one of their employees is agreeing with
the aggrieved party.
Very stupid of them, considering that Geraldo is
reportedly a lawyer, and that Fox might love the
chance to subsidize an action by him, and drain the
NYT of its remaining cash.
Thank you...that was partly my point. What page was it on? And was it actually a retraction? Clearly it wasn't. The fact that Stanley's editor found nothing wrong with her statement--and clearly said so on the record--basically puts the Times in the position of standing behind it. This latest attempt at a "retraction with retracting" is no different that an Al Goresque apology of "I didn't do it and I won't do it again. It's meaningless and Jerry should continue seeking legal damages.
He finally has an opportunity to burn the Times' ass after years of criticism. I hope he uses it.