Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

[Cow Poke]

Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

So that it doesn't get lost in all the other impeachment threads....

[Juvenal]

And his cow for $250 MM in March.
And McClactchy in August.
And Hearst for $77.5 MM in October.

And now CNN for $435.35 MM in December.

Before publishing the story, CNN asked Nunes to comment, but he declined repeated requests

[Mountain Man]

Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?

[Cow Poke]

And his cow for $250 MM in March....

I'm still ruminating on this one.

[rogue06]

I'm still ruminating on this one.

That's udderly ridiculous. Best moove on when you're done milking this.

[oxmixmudd]

Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?

Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?

[whag]

Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?

[Mountain Man]

Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?

Don't be ridiculous. They are legally, or at least ethically obligated to verify that what they are publishing is true. Saying, "Welp, Nunes didn't respond!" doesn't get them off the hook.

[Mountain Man]

Unless what you "report" is defamatory.

[whag]

Unless what you "report" is defamatory.

In what way was it libelous?

[Sparko]

Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?

They are legally responsible to fact check a story and not publish false allegations. Nunes' travels were public record for instance. Easily checked.

[oxmixmudd]

They are legally responsible to fact check a story and not publish false allegations. Nunes' travels were public record for instance. Easily checked.

To what extent. I guess juvenal would need to weigh in on that. There is something incredibly ridiculous - however - about suing a news organization for publishing a story for which you were contacted and for which you refused to comment. Seems like if he was contacted and then just flat out refused to even look at its content or provide a rebuttal if he knew it's content did not reflect reality, then it's his own fault if something potentially unflattering got out there. And frankly, if I were a judge I'd throw it out (the lawsuit)

[Sparko]

To what extent. I guess juvenal would need to weigh in on that. There is something incredibly ridiculous - however - about suing a news organization for publishing a story for which you were contacted and for which you refused to comment. Seems like if he was contacted and the just flat out refused to even look at its content or provide a rebuttal if he knew it's content did not reflect reality, then it's his own fault if something potentially unflattering got out there.

So its his own fault that CNN printed lies about him? wow.

Kind of like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

[oxmixmudd]

So its his own fault that CNN printed lies about him? wow.

Basically - yes. They contacted him and he had the opportunity to flag their source as lying about him and he refused. I basically falls back on him then. Now it would be CNN's fault if they did not do their due diligence, and you might have a point about looking at travel records. But Nunes just refusing to provide feedback - that part is his own fault.

Kind of like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

--[aside]---
Now that last comment would be a distortion of my words Sparko and skirts an attack on my character - if you are interested in not doing that sort of thing.
--[/aside]--

If someone tells lies about me to you and you tell someone else and don't ask me about them first, that is on you.

If someone tells lies about me to you and you come to me and ask me about them and I let you think they are true - that is on me.

[Sparko]

Basically - yes. They contacted him and he had the opportunity to flag their source as lying about him and he refused. I basically falls back on him then. Now it would be CNN's fault if they did not do their due diligence, and you might have a point about looking at travel records. But Nunes just refusing to provide feedback - that part is his own fault.



--[aside]---
Now that last comment would be a distortion of my words Sparko and skirts an attack on my character - if you are interested in not doing that sort of thing.
--[/aside]--


If someone tells lies about me to you and you tell someone else and don't ask me about them first, that is on you.

If someone tells lies about me to you and you come to me and ask me about them and I let you think they are true - that is on me.

I wasn't distorting your words, Jim. I was characterizing how I see the idea of having to prove your innocence to a newspaper reporter or they can print what they want. The newspaper has the responsibility to print the truth and investigate the matter, the subject has no burden of proof here. They could easily have checked his travel schedule, or contacted other people involved in the matter.