The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[scribe]

I don't know but maybe it's because the stock exchange is closed on a Saturday? So they have to write about other stuff?

Gotta admit. I was really impressed when the whole story broke in the WSJ earlier this spring. Gave it a seriousness that seemed to fool a lot of people. It'll be interesting to see if round 2 has the legs of the first go-around.

 

[scribe]

Have you actually read the article or are you (OMG) speculating on its content?

Doc, there is nearly 600 posts of speculation here....

 

[alberto.legstrong]

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

I somehow get the impression if someone says the word Murdoch to you, you suddenly rush for the vapors. I doubt that every single story they publish is run through him first.

They are trying to steal market share from the moribund New York Times dying circulation. They both are trying to do as much as they can on this particular story to compete with one another to provide its customers value.

 

[MacRoadie]

I don't know but maybe it's because the stock exchange is closed on a Saturday? So they have to write about other stuff?

The fact that the Journal has won 33 Pulitzer Prizes on a broad spectrum of subjects outside of financial reporting, including one in 1997 (two years after my dad passed away) for a series of articles on AIDS, apparently has no bearing on the matter.

 

[red_flanders]

It aint your dad's WSJ. Why the hell else are they posting this stuff as feature? WTF does this have to do with what once was a well-respected financial institution?

Since you haven't noticed, they have a "Life & Style" section. Not a new development. http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-lifestyle-arts-entertainment.html

It includes the subsections:
•*Speakeasy
•*Arts & Entertainment
•*Cars
•*Books & Ideas
•*Fashion
•*Food & Drink
•*Sports
•*World Cup 2010
•*Travel
•*WSJ. Magazine
•*Columns & Blogs

It's, you know, a newspaper. In one of the largest and most important metro areas on the planet.

I'm shocked this hasn't provoked your ire previously. I'll be willing to bet these sections existed even in the time of your father.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I'm getting a red X... which explains why people are reacting like I'm an idiot because they think it should be blatantly obvious. Ah well.

I'll have to look after work when I'm not behind the old firewall I guess.

Check out this link that alberto.legstrong posted

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...armstrongs.php

It's the SFweekly and it has a photo and small text of the WSJ ad

 

[red_flanders]

Other sections people might read in the WSJ...

• World
• U.S.
• New York
• Tech
• Personal Finance
• Opinion
• Careers
• Real Estate
• Small Business

It's an outrage.

 

[kurtinsc]

Check out this link that alberto.legstrong posted

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...armstrongs.php

It's the SFweekly and it has a photo and small text of the WSJ ad

"The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter".

It sounds like my computer is telling me to stop trying to read up on Lance and get back to work. Since 3/4ths of my office isn't here anyway, that's not really going to happen.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, there is nearly 600 posts of speculation here....

Agree to a point - but the 'ad' we have seen for tomorrows piece mentions "a culture of systmatic dopig in the sport" - your current arguement is built entirely of speculating on the speculation.

 

[MacRoadie]

Check out this link that alberto.legstrong posted

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...armstrongs.php

It's the SFweekly and it has a photo and small text of the WSJ ad

Nice pic of Dave Tool there...

Gonna have to change his irritating bell lap chant:

Nonetogo,nonetogo,nonetogo,nonetogo...

 

[Barrus]

I'm getting a red X... which explains why people are reacting like I'm an idiot because they think it should be blatantly obvious. Ah well.

I'll have to look after work when I'm not behind the old firewall I guess.

Alberto.legstrong posted a link which gives a small picture and gives some insight into what the article might be

@ scribe

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

isn't this what most gossip magazines do?
Also, just a quick search shows the following:

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

From the Media Law Resource Center
Or from Expertlaw.com

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

shall I continue? How can LA show actual malice?

 

[scribe]

Agree to a point - but the 'ad' we have seen for tomorrows piece mentions "a culture of systmatic dopig in the sport" - your current arguement is built entirely of speculating on the speculation.

In spite of all the speculation, you are correct and accurate in this instance, doc.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

"The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter".

It sounds like my computer is telling me to stop trying to read up on Lance and get back to work. Since 3/4ths of my office isn't here anyway, that's not really going to happen.

Can you type the SFweekly addy in your browser? If so you could find the article in there.

 

[MacRoadie]

How can LA show actual malice?

Well, duh!

Murdoch hates him and wants SKY to win, remember?

 

[kurtinsc]

shall I continue? How can LA show actual malice?

Well, not saying I think it would fly... but the timing of the release (especially if they've had the story on the shelf for a week like many here thought), could be argued as malicious if the WSJ was found to knowingly print false information.

Not that I think it's the case.

 

[scribe]

Alberto.legstrong posted a link which gives a small picture and gives some insight into what the article might be

@ scribe

isn't this what most gossip magazines do?
Also, just a quick search shows the following:

From the Media Law Resource Center
Or from Expertlaw.com

shall I continue? How can LA show actual malice?

lol!

Where do you guys come from??? haha Gotta love posting with linear-thinking roadie types.

 

[Anonymous]

For those wondering if the ad mentions Armstrong, here is the ad again

@ scribe

Wouldn't it be necessary for LA to prove that the WSJ knows this to be untrue, something that is almost impossible to prove

Yes, it would. All of these people who write the "that is slander and you can get sued" don't know the law. Mr Armstrong is a public figure and liable or slander carries a different burden of proof than it would if they wrote something about you or I, and even then, there is a significant protection for us. They have to make a knowingly false statement, and it has to be proven that they knew it was a completely false statement at the time it was printed. Almost impossible to prove. However, you can sue if you want, but it will cost you both a bunch of money.

 

[Publicus]

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

I think you probably don't know the law around libel as well as you do. It would be a very tough case to prove, especially with respect to someone like Armstrong who is a public person. There is a reason why Lance chose to file lawsuits overseas in the past and not in the US.

 

[Barrus]

Well, not saying I think it would fly... but the timing of the release (especially if they've had the story on the shelf for a week like many here thought), could be argued as malicious if the WSJ was found to knowingly print false information.

Not that I think it's the case.

Again, this is almost impossible to prove. If they have an interview with FLandis, as is rumoured and perhaps some other information, how can they be shown to knowingly print false information. This is one of the reasons why a lot of the times public figures do not start libel proceedings or they are inefficient. Perhaps should he try in Europe, he would have a better chance, however in this case this would not serve the purpose for which LA would start a Libel-claim

 

[scribe]

Yes, it would. All of these people who write the "that is slander and you can get sued" don't know the law. Mr Armstrong is a public figure and liable or slander carries a different burden of proof than it would if they wrote something about you or I, and even then, there is a significant protection for us. They have to make a knowingly false statement, and it has to be proven that they knew it was a completely false statement at the time it was printed. Almost impossible to prove. However, you can sue if you want, but it will cost you both a bunch of money.

These things normally get settled. If you have sufficient cause so as to not get netted up frivolous suit problems, it will likely lead to a significant settlement, which has all the appearances of a victory.

 

[red_flanders]

No way Lance will sue. He's done with lawsuits, remember?

You know, legal action takes time, takes energy, and takes a lot of money. I have sued a few people in my day and you know, been successful there and proved my innocence through that and I don’t need to do that anymore. My energy needs to be devoted to the team, to Live Strong to my kids.

 

[scribe]

No way Lance will sue. He's done with lawsuits, remember?

Landis = $0
WSJ = $$$$$$$$$$

 

[Barrus]

lol!

Where do you guys come from??? haha Gotta love posting with linear-thinking roadie types.

Where have I gone wrong? Please enlighten me. It is not my area of expertise and perhaps it is yours. So please state why LA could put forth a libel/slander/defamation suit?

 

[kurtinsc]

Again, this is almost impossible to prove. If they have an interview with FLandis, as is rumoured and perhaps some other information, how can they be shown to knowingly print false information. This is one of the reasons why a lot of the times public figures do not start libel proceedings or they are inefficient. Perhaps should he try in Europe, he would have a better chance, however in this case this would not serve the purpose for which LA would start a Libel-claim

I don't think he can prove it.

But if somehow he could... then I think they could get that extra "malicious" bit from the timing... if they could prove the WSJ sat on it until the opening weekend of the Tour. I don't think the "malicious" side is the big gamestopper... it's the idea that they knew the information to be false. If they could somehow prove the latter, then I think the former would be somewhat easy.

But again... there's no way he could win a case like this.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

If they have a source, it isn't "printing anything with hopes," especially if it is corroborated. And contrary to your suggestions, the WSJ is still good enough to know what it can and cannot print. I don't think they will be calling you for an opinion of that based on your posts.