[GVnana]

Ah, the current state of American journalism...

[nhwingut]

This was predictable.

Character assasination filled with bald-faced lies. ‘

Followed by “um, sorry, my bad.”

[bmwcyle]

BOR said that Rush was a public figure and he could not sue. Many public figures have sued and won. Rush has the best case I have seen yet.

[Cboldt]

The legal standard is "actual malice," which is a legal term of art for "the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false." In NYT v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court probed failure to fact check, and found the following to work as a bar to a finding of defamation:

Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times "knew" the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of rejecting advertisements containing "attacks of a personal character"; their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We think the evidence against the Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.

New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

I think Limbaugh's case against CNN is MUCH stronger than Sullivan's case against NYT. There is no question that CNN's reports were against Limbaugh (Sullivan was not personally named in the advertisement that he sued on), and CNN's "reliance on the good character of the source" argument is weak, in light of the statement in Wiki that the report about Limbaugh (in Wiki) is described (in Wiki) as being contested! CNN made specific, direct statements - incorrectly attributed to Limbaugh - and if they used Wiki, they were given notice that the "fact" was contested.

CNN needs to use the minuscule amount of restraint necessary to prevent that the rumors they sell from having the concurrent qualities of being false (while CNN asserts they are true) and damaging to the people they name. That is not too much to ask, under the law.

I would also sue certain people within CNN personally, even though CNN is bound to pay their defense and any judgment.

[Travis McGee]

Does Rick Sanchez ever discuss his drunken hit and run, back in his Miami reporter days?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Rush, I’d rather own CNN than a football team. Just sayin.

[reagan_fanatic]

i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.

How old is this guy - twelve?

[N. Theknow]

CNN - Fact-check a SNL skit about 0bama, but slander a conservative without one iota of fact-checking.

[Tribune7]

i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.

He doesn't seem that concerned about any damage he did. I hope Rush sues.

[Proverbs 3-5]

It's easy to apologize after you've done the damage. Kind of like when Sanchez was involved in a hit&run DUI episode that killed a man. “Opps, hic, my bad, hic”

[Dixie Yooper]

Has anyone bothered to look at Rush's attempt to join one of the most elite group of capitalists in America from the NFL Owner's point of view? After seeing whats happening to the “evil” insurance industry, the “evil” financial industry, the “really evil” oil industry and any other way for an industrious individual or group of investors trying to make a profit, who in their right mind would want Rush Limbaugh and all the attention he brings to the table trying join in any venture they are involved in? If the NFL Owners would have allowed Rush to join the club, their heads would have been the next target on our Socialist Government's agenda. Can you imagine The National Football League being Nationalized? I'm sure if things keep going the way they are, it will eventually happen, but why would anyone want to speed up the process? The outcome of Rush's bid to become even a minority owner was decided long before it was even a twinkle in Rush's eye.

[Caipirabob]

CNN's Sanchez: "We didn't confirm" bogus Limbaugh quote

SO HE'S ADMITTING TO LIBEL?

[GatorGirl]

Poor Rush—it’s a “when did you stop beating your wife?” situation.

But wait..isn’t the NFL full of felons and wife beaters?

That’s the real hypocrisy. Rush is bad for exercising his free speech (for the one questionable thing he said re: McNabb, the rest is all lies) and the rest of them can commit felonies, etc...and still collect their massive paychecks.

[small farm girl]

Weren't we supposed to boycott Beck for less? Seems like everyone on CNN is throwing hate speech around about Rush, including how he could/should die - and no word of sponsors pulling out. I am really shocked by the hypocrisy! (sarc)

[behzinlea]

Whereas Keith Olberputz's rhetoric is excusably divisive?

Man, how I despise these liberal asses.

[McGavin999]

They didn’t confirm a vicious quote and they say RUSH is devisive? “Our bad”? Open your pocketbooks baby, you are about to get cleaned out.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.”

In other words they lied and slandered.
Sue them.

[MamaTexan]

CNN's Sanchez: "We didn't confirm" bogus Limbaugh quote

Now is NOT the time to be nice. Every time the lefties get caught with their pants down, conservatives take the high road, cover their eyes and refuse to LOOK....much less point and laugh.

-----

Sue, Rush! SUE!

[AD from SpringBay]

Doesn’t the Sanchez admission prove libel? Seems like Rush could sue and handily win.

[Republic of Texas]

Now that we got the result we wanted, “our bad”.

[stevie_d_64]

This is why Sanchez is a frappin’ idiot...But a useful one...