Posted on 12/31/2008 8:49:31 AM PST by tom h
Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit “romantic” relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.
The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.
William Keller, the paper’s executive editor, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the suit.
Richmond lawyer W. Coleman Allen Jr. and Rodney M. Smolla, dean of the Washington & Lee law school and a First Amendment scholar, represent Iseman. The story was first reported online by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, an LIBN sister publication.
The 36-page complaint charges that the story implies an “unprofessional relationship” between Iseman and McCain.
Both Iseman and McCain denied any improper relationship. However, the public viewed the story as being about an affair, according to the suit, which cites the post-publication remarks of 10 different commentators across the political spectrum. In each case, their comments about the story assumed it was about an alleged affair, the lawyers noted.
The Times’ own public editor, Clark Hoyt, published what Allen called a “blistering attack” on the Times’ decision to publish the original Iseman article.
The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health. The lawyers noted that she continues to work as a lobbyist in Washington, for a firm based in Arlington. They said they anticipate developing their case on damages as the matter moves forward.
The piece was published at the height of the primary season last winter, and, the suit states, the defendants knew that it would “reverberate around the world.”
“In their attack on Senator McCain, the [defendants] were willing to sacrifice Ms. Iseman as acceptable collateral damage, recklessly indifferent to the avalanche of scorn, derision and ridicule Ms. Iseman would suffer,” the suit charges.
Iseman waited to file the suit until after the presidential election, in an effort to avoid influencing its outcome, her lawyers said.
Click here to read the full text of the complaint in Iseman v. The New York Times Co. Inc.
Update: The New York Times issued a statement following the filing of the suit: “We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.”
Story written by Paul Fletcher and Alan Cooper.
Can NYT afford $27 millions?
:-)
Good luck with the lawsuit, but at least it will highlight the serious problem at the Times.
Good for her.
hope she gets hers before the paper folds...
GO, Vicki!!
You GO, Girl!
Nice if her lawsuit would be the last nail in the coffin!
This is the standard defense when the paper is guilty.
If the story were true the papers defense would be. "The story is true and here is the evidence that proves it is true." Such as motel or hotel room records and witnesses that saw them go into a room at night and other witnesses that saw them come out in the morning.
When a media outlet has nothing to back up their story they just say they stand behind the story and they believe it to be true and accurate. It is the defense lawyers recommend when their client is guilty. They just hope the jury is too dumb to figure it out.
Of course Clinton had to speak for himself when he claimed that oral sex was not sex. No attorney who hoped to keep his license would say that for a client.
What an attorney can do for a guilty client is say, "He says he is not guilty and I believe him. I think the evidence will show he is not guilty." That means he is guilty as sin.
The Times will settle.
Can you imagine what would happen if, under oath, these editors where forced to defend editorial decisions made during the last election? If a judge would let it go on, it could be very interesting. Privacy, standards for proof, partisanship - it could all be exposed by a good cross examining attorney.
Wait a minute, it would require a judge to go along.. Never mind.
The Slimes has no reason to worry ... the Bailout is on its way ... :^)
In the old days, even as recently as five years ago, the NYT was so arrogant they could dare someone to sue and just pile a team of high-priced lawyers from across the street on the lawsuit.
NOW ... we can bleed them dry. They are hemorrhaging cash and will bite their nails when these lawsuits hit. Will Pinch have to pay for things out of his own pocket? Sell the house in the Hamptons perhaps?
I think a class-action suit against them would be a lot of fun to watch. Any Freepers have any ideas?
Then the Feds should sue them for releasing classified information — twice — during the past five years. THAT lawsuit might bleed them dry. If only, if only ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.