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.
So wouldn't this statement imply the reverse consideration is true?: "everyone" knew Rush to be provocative and "divisive" so the people who spread the lie saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable.
By having a court decide in this way, the drive-drunk-and-run-over media will put the cap on the public sentiment that Rush is nothing more than a rude, insulting, racist.
That *or* is important, Sanchez admitting to not verifying indicates recklessness, the media has a professional standard to bear. Jackson and Sharpton did act with malice, they had no vested interest in whether or not Rush or any other person buys in to an NFL franchise, their only goal was to secure his failure, they accomplished said goal. People keep claiming public figures cannot sue for libel, this is demonstrably false, Carol Burnett and Tom Selleck only two examples. I'm no lawyer, and I do understand the law is different from actuality at times, but this one seems so ridiculous. If it actually can be proffered that anyone may say anything about anybody, so long as he's some kind of celebrity, then we are in a world of hurt in this country.