Tag Archives: NYT

Netflix’s Reed Hastings weighs in on Elon Musk at NYT summit

Netflix co-CEO Reed Hastings offered some of his thoughts on billionaire and Twitter CEO Elon Musk while speaking Wednesday at a New York Times summit.

Hastings told Andrew Ross Sorkin, founder and editor-at-large of DealBook at The New York Times, that he thinks Musk is the “bravest, most creative person on the planet.” He said what Musk has “done in multiple areas is phenomenal.”

Reed Hastings attends the Netflix and Mediaset Partnership Announcement in Rome Oct. 8, 2019. (Ernesto S. Ruscio/Getty Images/Netflix / Getty Images)

Musk serves as the chief executive of Twitter, Tesla and SpaceX and co-founded OpenAI, Neuralink and The Boring Company. He completed his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in late October, implementing major changes at the social media platform since then.

DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE ELON MUSK OVER STATE OF TWITTER

Tesla CEO Elon Musk smiles as he addresses guests at the Offshore Northern Seas 2022 meeting in Stavanger, Norway, Aug. 29, 2022. (Carina Johansen / Getty Images)

“His style is different than, like, ‘I’m trying to be a really steady, respectable leader,’ you know. He doesn’t care,” Hastings said at the DealBook summit. “He’s just like out there.”

“Think of a guy who’s spending $44 billion. He could have built the biggest … he could have built a mile-long yacht for $44 billion,” he added. “But it’s not good for the planet, so he’s not interested. He’s in for things that help.”

Hastings is “100% convinced that [Musk] is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors,” he told Sorkin. He said he thinks Musk is “trying to help the world” on Twitter “because he believes in free speech and its power for democracy.”

The Netflix co-CEO went on to suggest Musk’s method “is not how I would do it” but noted that he’s “deeply respectful.” 

Elon Musk, Tesla CEO, attends the opening of the Tesla factory Berlin Brandenburg in Gruenheide, Germany, March 22, 2022. (Patrick Pleul/Pool via AP / AP Newsroom)

“I’m amazed that people are so nit-picky on him on — yeah, sorry — the blue check mark. He’s making a mess of some things,” Hastings said. “Give the guy a break. He just spent all this money to try to make it much better for democracy and society, to have a more open platform, and I am sympathetic to that agenda.”

TWITTER ENDS COVID-19 MISINFORMATION POLICY AFTER MUSK PROMISES ‘GENERAL AMNESTY’ FOR SUSPENDED ACCOUNTS

Musk launched the platform’s verification subscription service earlier in November, and accounts impersonating public figures and companies subsequently appeared on the platform, FOX Business previously reported. 

He rolled back the feature and has since said Twitter would hold off on relaunching it “until there is a high confidence of stopping impersonation.”

In this Feb. 28, 2017, file photo, Netflix Founder and CEO Reed Hastings smiles during an interview in Barcelona, Spain. (AP Photo/Manu Fernandez, File / Associated Press)

The Netflix co-CEO’s remarks at the summit caught Musk’s attention online. The Twitter CEO replied to a clip of them, saying, “Wow, thank you for the kind words @reedhastings.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The New York Times’ yearly DealBook Summit took place in New York City. Notable interviewees and speakers included Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, among others.



Read original article here

Supreme Court Justice Alito denies NYT report that he leaked Hobby Lobby opinion

Comment

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. denied an allegation from a former antiabortion activist that Alito or his wife disclosed to conservative donors the outcome of a pending 2014 case regarding contraceptives and religious rights.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Rob Schenck, who on his website identifies himself as a “once-right-wing religious leader but now dissenting evangelical voice,” said he was told the outcome of the case, Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, several weeks before it was announced. Schenck said a conservative donor to his organization relayed the information after a dinner with Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, and the justice’s wife.

But the donor, Gayle Wright, told the Times that Schenck’s account was not true, and Alito issued a statement denying it as well.

“The allegation that the Wrights were told the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or the authorship of the opinion of the Court, by me or my wife is completely false,” Alito said.

“My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship,” the statement said. “I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so.”

How one man brought affirmative action to the Supreme Court. Again and again.

In response to questions Saturday about the denials from Alito and Wright, Schenck confirmed in a statement “the extensive details and facts” he provided in the Times account and declined to comment further.

Schenck’s allegation comes after the unprecedented leak this spring of Alito’s draft opinion upholding a restrictive Mississippi abortion law and overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade nearly 50 years earlier. The leak was a shocking breach of the court’s secretive and closely held deliberations, and Alito recently denounced it as a “grave betrayal of trust.”

The episode added to growing debate over the legitimacy and behind-the-scenes operations of the Supreme Court at a time when public approval of the court has sunk to historic lows.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced an investigation into the origins of the leak soon after it was published in early May but has not provided any further information. Some justices have said in public appearances that they expect a report or updates, but they have not been specific.

Supreme Court term begins amid questions about its legitimacy

According to the Times, Schenck sent a letter to Roberts in June volunteering the information about the 2014 dinner with the Alitos, which he did not attend. He wrote that the “series of events” that he was disclosing “may impinge on the investigation you and your delegates are undertaking in connection with the leak of a draft opinion.”

Schenck told the Times that Roberts did not respond. A court spokeswoman declined to provide the letter or comment on the progress of the leak investigation.

This is not the first time Schenck has publicly revealed what he describes as efforts by Christian conservatives to influence the direction of the court. Schenck in the past has told Politico and Rolling Stone about efforts he undertook on behalf of his nonprofit, Faith and Action, to ingratiate himself with the three justices who at the time were the court’s most conservative — Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

But the Times report, by Jodi Kantor and Jo Becker, said Schenck had not previously shared allegations about knowing in advance the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case, which held that family-owned businesses did not have to provide certain contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act’s insurance requirements.

Ginni Thomas’s emails with Trump lawyers add to tumult at Supreme Court

“The evidence for Mr. Schenck’s account of the breach has gaps,” the reporters wrote. “But in months of examining Mr. Schenck’s claims, the Times found a trail of contemporaneous emails and conversations that strongly suggested he knew the outcome and the author of the Hobby Lobby decision before it was made public.”

Schenck provided an email from Gayle Wright, who along with her now-deceased husband, Donald, were major contributors to Schenck’s nonprofit. Schenck told the Times that when he learned the Wrights would be the dinner guests of Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, in 2014, he asked Gayle Wright to learn what she could about the pending Hobby Lobby case.

A day later, Gayle Wright wrote: “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails,” the Times reported.

According to the Times report, Schenck said Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, Alito delivered the court’s opinion.

Wright disputed Schenck’s account in an interview with the Times. She said she believed she fell ill during the dinner at the Alitos’ home in Alexandria that night and that the justice drove her and her husband back to her hotel. That might have been the news she wanted to share with Schenck.

“Being a friend or having a friendly relationship with a justice, you know that they don’t ever tell you about cases. They aren’t allowed to,” Wright told the Times “Nor would I ask. There has never been a time in all my years that a justice or a justice’s spouse told me anything about a decision.”

Nina Totenberg was friends with RBG. Got a problem with that?

The Wrights were major contributors to the Supreme Court Historical Society, which Schenck has said is something he encouraged his donors to fund.

In his statement, Alito said that is the only way he knew the couple. “I have no knowledge of any project that they allegedly undertook for “Faith and Action,” “Faith and Liberty,” or any similar group, and I would be shocked and offended if those allegations are true,” his statement said.

A liberal group that has advocated increasing the size of the Supreme Court to offset its new conservative supermajority called on the Senate to look into the report.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito,” said Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon. “The whistleblower in this report, Rev. Rob Schenck, should be called to testify about both the leak and the years-long lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices.”

Fallon added: “It’s no wonder trust in the Court has hit a record low. Structural reform of the Court, including strict new ethics rules, is needed now more than ever.”

Read original article here

US intelligence says Ukrainians behind Dugina killing: NYT | Russia-Ukraine war News

Assessment that ‘parts of the Ukraine government’ authorised bombing was shared last week, according to the New York Times.

Intelligence agencies in the United States believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorised the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, according to a report in the New York Times.

The assessment of alleged Ukrainian complicity was shared within the US government last week, the paper reported on Wednesday.

The US officials who spoke about the intelligence did not disclose which elements of the Ukrainian government were believed to have authorised the mission, who carried out the attack, or whether President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed off on it. Those briefed on the Ukrainian action and the US response spoke on the condition of anonymity, in order to discuss secret information and matters of sensitive diplomacy, the report said.

Dugina, a 29-year-old commentator with a nationalist Russian TV channel, was killed when a bomb exploded in her car in August, in an attack that Russia blamed on Ukrainian “special services“.

Ukraine’s government denied involvement at the time, and when asked about the US intelligence assessment, Zelenskyy adviser Mykhailo Podolyak reiterated those denials.

“Again, I’ll underline that any murder during wartime in some country or another must carry with it some kind of practical significance,” Podolyak told The New York Times. “It should fulfill some specific purpose, tactical or strategic. Someone like Dugina is not a tactical or a strategic target for Ukraine.”

US officials also told the paper that they lack a complete picture of the competing power centres in the Ukrainian government, including the military, the security services and Zelenskyy’s office. This may explain why some parts of the Ukrainian government may not have been aware of the plot, it added.

The US took no part in the attack, had no prior knowledge of it and “admonished” Ukrainian officials afterwards, the New York Times said, adding that the US would have opposed the killing if it had been aware of the plan.

Dugina’s father, Alexander Dugin, is a prominent ultranationalist and staunch supporter of Russia’s war in Ukraine, and some believe he was the intended target.

Russian media said Dugin switched cars with his daughter shortly before the blast, which ripped the Toyota Land Cruiser apart as she was driving through the outskirts of Moscow after attending a cultural festival. Dugina was also a prominent supporter of the Ukraine invasion, known as a ‘special military operation’ in Russia.

Russia has not taken any specific retaliation over the killing, but the US is concerned that such attacks could provoke Moscow into carrying out its own attacks against senior Ukrainian officials, the New York Times said.

Russia’s intelligence agency, the FSB, has said a Ukrainian woman, who entered Russia in July and rented an apartment where Dugina lived, was behind the bombing. She fled Russia after the attack, according to the agency.

Read original article here

NYT Crossword Answers: Opening in a Magic Act

I couldn’t help hearing that chant in my head as I worked on Mr. Wolfe’s puzzle. I had no trouble solving this one, although it did take me a while to understand the structure of the theme entries.

My first assumption was that the puzzle had a rebus element because 1) I had trouble making entries fit and 2) it’s Thursday, which is when the majority of rebuses run. However, that was quickly disproved when I got to 61A. After fiddling around with it a bit, I figured out that the answer was GOODY SHOES SHOES, where the phrase “goody two shoes” is written out by doubling the SHOES.

What I find interesting is that Mr. Wolfe found two more instances of “doubled” phrases that conveyed the “twoness” of the entries without repeating the others. At 17A, the title of the James Bond film “You Only Live Twice” is written YOU ONLY LIVE LIVE. “Double blind study” is the phrase at 38A, but it’s written BLIND BLIND STUDY.

We don’t see many themes with only three entries anymore. It would have been nice if Mr. Wolfe had been able to find one more doubled entry that fit, but I would rather see a theme with three well-spaced entries that sparkle than one with more entries that don’t hang together well.

This puzzle came together over the course of a week as I sat out an early pandemic quarantine that, because of my own poor preparation, left me without access to books, television, friends, family or internet. It’s amazing how fast time can fly with only pen and paper to keep you company.

Double blind study was the inspiration for the theme, and when it quickly become apparent that there weren’t enough “double” expressions of suitable length, I thought it would be fun if each of the theme answers used a different turn of phrase for the repeating words. Everything fell into place quite quickly after that, with the primary remaining challenge being reading my own handwriting.

I’m beyond thrilled to make my New York Times Crossword debut and hope that working my own puzzle when it’s published will help improve my average solve time.

If you’re interested in receiving puzzles, brain teasers, solving tips and more in your inbox every week, sign up for the new Gameplay newsletter.

The New York Times Crossword has an open submission system, which will be temporarily closed July 1-Aug. 1. In the meantime, you can review our submission guidelines here.

For tips on how to get started, read our series, “How to Make a Crossword Puzzle.”

Read original article here

Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall are getting a divorce – NYT

91st Academy Awards – Vanity Fair – Beverly Hills, California, U.S., February 24, 2019 – Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

June 22 (Reuters) – Media mogul Rupert Murdoch and actress Jerry Hall are getting a divorce, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the matter.

Murdoch got married to Hall in a low-key ceremony in central London in March 2016. The Fox Corp (FOXA.O) chairman and his former supermodel wife were frequent fodder for the tabloids, which chronicled their marriage at Spencer House and the festivities surrounding the elder Murdoch’s 90th birthday celebration last year at Tavern on the Green in New York City.

Murdoch’s divorce, his fourth, is unlikely to alter the ownership structure of businesses he holds stakes in, which include Fox Corp, the parent company of Fox News Channel, and News Corp (NWSA.O) publisher of the Wall Street Journal, according to the report.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The 91-year-old Murdoch controls News Corp and Fox Corp through a Reno, Nevada-based family trust that holds roughly a 40% stake in voting shares of each company.

Bryce Tom, a spokesperson for Murdoch, declined to comment. A representative for Hall, who is 65, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The billionaire, whose net worth Forbes estimates at $17.7 billion, built a sprawling media empire with assets around the globe. He sold the Fox film and television studios and other entertainment assets to Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) in a $71.3 billion deal that closed in March 2019.

Murdoch previously was married to entrepreneur Wendi Deng, whom he divorced in 2014 after 14 years of marriage. They have two daughters. He split from his second wife, Anna Murdoch Mann, a Scottish journalist with whom he had three children, in 1999. He and his first wife, Patricia Booker, a former flight attendant with whom he had a daughter, divorced in 1966.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Eva Mathews in Bengaluru and Dawn Chmielewski and Lisa Richwine in Los Angeles and Helen Coster in New York; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta and Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

NYT: Law enforcement were aware of people trapped in Robb Elementary before they breached classroom

“People are going to ask why we’re taking so long,” a law enforcement official on the scene of the shooting could be heard saying, according to the Times, which cited a transcript of law enforcement body camera footage.

“We’re trying to preserve the rest of the life,” the transcript reads, according to the Times.

“We’re ready to breach, but that door is locked,” Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, the Uvalde school district police chief, said around 12:30 p.m., the Times reported, citing a transcript. Arredondo has been identified by authorities as the official who led the flawed law enforcement response to the shooting.

The Times reported that officers had grown impatient and were voicing their concerns.

“If there’s kids in there, we need to go in there,” one officer could be heard saying, according to the Times, which cited investigative documents.

“Whoever is in charge will determine that,” another officer responded, according to the Times.

According to CNN’s timeline of events, the first officers entered the school building at roughly 11:35 a.m. — just moments after the 18-year-old gunman, who went on to kill 19 young students and two teachers that day.

By roughly 11:44 a.m., officers on the scene were calling for additional resources, equipment, body armor and negotiators and evacuating students and teachers, officials previously said.

By 12:03 p.m., there were “as many as 19 officers” gathered in the hallway of the school, while the gunman was inside the adjoining classrooms where the massacre took place.

At the same time, a student from inside one of the adjoining classrooms called 911 identifying herself and the classroom she was in, officials said. She called again at 12:13 p.m. and then again several minutes later, telling dispatchers there were eight to nine students still alive, according to authorities.

Law enforcement breached the classroom door at 12:50 p.m., using keys from a janitor, and shot and killed the suspect.

In a May 27 news conference, Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw said the classroom was not immediately breached because the incident commander — Arredondo — thought the scene was a “barricaded subject situation” and not an active shooter situation. He said the district police chief believed “there was time to retrieve the keys and wait for a tactical team with the equipment to go ahead and breach the door and take on the subject.”

“From the benefit of hindsight where I’m sitting now, of course it was not the right decision,” McCraw said at the time about the supervisor’s call not to confront the shooter. “It was the wrong decision. Period. There’s no excuse for that.”

CNN has reached out to DPS and Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell Busbee’s office for comment.

Attempting to get more answers about the tragedy, a Texas House investigative committee on Thursday held its first hearing in the mission and could produce a preliminary report by the end of the month.

A source close to the committee said that report is expected to focus on the facts only and include a chronological sequence of events, a timeline and details on the shooter. The committee is quasi-judicial and has subpoena power, and all witness testimony will be under oath, the source said.

The Texas Rangers, an investigative branch of the state’s public safety department, are also investigating the massacre and the law enforcement response. The US Justice Department is also reviewing the law enforcement response at the request of Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin.

In a Thursday statement in response to the Times article, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s press secretary Renae Eze said, “The investigations being conducted by the Texas Rangers and the FBI are ongoing, and we look forward to the full results being shared with the victims’ families and the public, who deserve the full truth of what happened that tragic day.”

CNN’s Christina Maxouris and Rosa Flores contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Videos Show Russian Troops Leading Ukrainians Before Apparent Execution: NYT

  • A photo taken in Bucha in April showed a group of Ukrainian men who appeared to have been executed.
  • A NYT investigation showed the men were in custody of Russian troops before apparently being killed.
  • A video showed the Ukrainian captives being marched in a single file and flanked by Russian troops.

Videos from Bucha, Ukraine, appeared to show a group of Ukrainian captives being led at gunpoint by Russian troops moments before they were executed.

The videos, obtained and verified by The New York Times, were taken on March 4 by a security camera and a civilian who witnessed the ordeal.

The security camera footage showed a group of nine Ukrainians hunched over, holding the pants of the person in front of them and some with their hands placed over their heads, crossing a street in a single file. Two Russian soldiers with guns can be seen at the front and back of the group, directing the line.

Eight witnesses told The Times the captives were then taken behind an office building, gunshots were heard, and the group did not reappear. 

Additional drone footage obtained by The Times confirmed the witness accounts, showing the groups’ bodies beside an office building as Russian soldiers stood over them.

The videos were not independently verified by Insider.

The group of apparently executed men from the videos were also seen in a photo taken April 3. The Times said its investigation, published Thursday, uncovered the “clearest evidence yet” that Russian forces intentionally executed the group, “directly implicating these forces in a likely war crime.”

Reports of atrocities and executions poured out of Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, after Russian forces began retreating in late March. Stories and images from Bucha fueled international calls for a war crimes trial against Russia.

Russian officials have repeatedly dismissed reports of atrocities committed in Bucha, calling them “fake.”

Read original article here

Lia Thomas: NYT science reporter mocked for claiming transgender swimmer faces ‘hormonal scrutiny’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York Times science reporter Azeen Ghorayshi got attention this week for her report on Penn swimmer Lia Thomas, the transgender athlete who has fueled a national debate over whether transgender women should be participating in women’s sports. 

Thomas made headlines over the past months after repeatedly shattering swimming records just two years after competing as a biological male, trouncing her female competitors. 

PENN’S LIA THOMAS PICKS UP VICTORY IN 200 FREE AT IVY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP, SETS MEET RECORD

In a report published Wednesday, Ghorayshi tackled the question, “What defines a woman?” 

“These thorny questions over the nature of athleticism are not new in women’s sports,” Ghorayshi wrote. “They have come up many times over the past century, typically when an athlete deemed too masculine started to win. Sports authorities have leaned on medical tests — whether anatomical, chromosomal or hormonal — to determine eligibility in women’s categories, while requiring no analogous tests for men. But in the realm of elite physical performance, where extraordinary biology is the rule, science has never provided neat answers.”

Penn transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.
(AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

The articles addressed controversies in women’s sports over the decades with experts weighing in on the subject. 

One expert, London’s Adult Gender Identity Clinic director Dr. James Barrett, suggested transgender women might have a disadvantage in some sports, given their heavier musculature, telling the Times, “Trans women by and large aren’t winning across the board … It’s not obvious that there’s necessarily an advantage at all.”

PENN’S LIA THOMAS WINS IVY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP IN 500 FREE

The Times reporter did, however, acknowledge, “Still, because of development during puberty, transgender athletes may have some lasting physical advantages in a sport like swimming, such as a taller height and larger hands and feet.”

Ghorayshi shared her report on Twitter, writing, “Lia Thomas is just the latest elite athlete in the last century who has been subject to anatomical, chromosomal or hormonal scrutiny to compete in women’s events. One thing they all have in common? They were winning.”

Critics mocked Ghorayshi’s remark. 

“‘Chromosomal Justice’ — ‘Elite athlete’ — Lia Thomas was a mediocre performer when racing against men,” Fox News contributor Joe Concha reacted. 

“It takes an enormous degree of credulity to believe that the scrutiny here isn’t a result of Thomas having been a member of the men’s swimming team at the same university as recently as 2019,” political commentator Drew Holden wrote. “I just don’t understand how anyone acting in good faith can compare the dubious use and application of testosterone tests of female athletes to pushback when someone who was competing as a man three years ago is now competing as a woman.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

“Please explain what ‘chromosomal scrutiny’ means,” The Spectator contributing editor Stephen Miller told the Times reporter. 

“We’ve finally found a way to trick feminists into defending men,” Substack writer Jim Treacher quipped.

Read original article here

Under NYT Ownership, Wordle Is Less Communal, Less Sweary

Photo: Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Last month, improbably named Wordle creator Josh Wardle sold his magical game to the New York Times. “We could not be more thrilled to become the new home and proud stewards of this magical game,” Times general manager of games Jonathan Knight in a statement at the time of acquisition. Well, this week we are seeing what the Times stewardship of Wordle looks like. Gone is (some of) the more vulgar potential guesses, and along with them, the shared sense of community that came with everyone getting the same puzzle every day. According to the Washington Post, Wordlers now may get one of two different puzzles each day depending on what site they use. “Luckily for Wordle fans,” they wrote, “the mismatch with fellow players is reversible. Refreshing the website where they’re playing the game should sync the puzzle with the updated version.”

Irreversible, however, is the censoring of certain guesses within the game. Polygon is reporting that the NYT has banned certain vulgar guesses, along with certain gendered slurs. “Whore,” “bitch,” and “sluts” are gone — a devastating blow to all self-professed whordles (Wordle whores). “Fucks,” however, is still in play.

Read original article here

What to know ahead of a verdict in Palin vs NYT case

More than four years after former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) sued The New York Times over an editorial linking her to a deadly 2011 shooting in an Arizona parking lot, she finally took the stand in a trial last week. 

James Bennet, then the editorial page editor at the Times, has denied the newspaper intentionally tried to blame Palin for the shooting in the since-corrected article, and the Times also also argued that it did not harm her reputation. 

Palin and her legal team must now persuade jurors that the Times and Bennet’s actions were made with “actual malice,” a high bar for defamation cases against public figures. 

The jury of nine people began deliberations on Friday in the case and are expected to resume their work on Monday morning.

Here’s what you need to know ahead of the verdict. 

The article

At the center of the trial is an editorial, titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” that drew a link between Palin’s political action committee and the 2011 shooting that wounded several people, including Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), and killed six. 

The piece stated that the shooting took place after Palin’s PAC shared a map placing 20 Democratic lawmakers including Giffords in “stylized cross hairs.” It was published on the same day as a shooting at a baseball field where Republican lawmakers were practicing. 

The editorial was later corrected to say that the opinion piece “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting.” 

Palin’s testimony 

The former governor and 2008 Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate has previously been an outspoken critic of what she has called “lame stream” media. 

In her testimony during the trial, she described herself as feeling “powerless” as a result of the editorial, according to Reuters.

“It was devastating to read, again, an accusation, a false accusation that I had anything to do with murder, murdering innocent people,” Palin said. “And I felt powerless.”

“It’s hard to lay your head on a pillow and have a restful night when you know that lies are told about you, a specific lie that was not going to be fixed,” she added, arguing that the paper was “trying to score political points” as the “the be-all, end-all, the loud voice in American media.”

Bennet’s testimony:

Bennet, who was the former editor-in-chief of The Atlantic before becoming the opinion page editor at the Times, resigned from the newspaper in June 2020 following the publication of a highly criticized op-ed piece by Sen. Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonOvernight Health Care — GOP shows support for Canadian protesters Overdose epidemic costs US T per year: research This plan for US critical minerals works around supply chain woes MORE, calling for a military response to civil unrest taking place in the U.S. at the time.

The piece at the center of the Palin trial was originally drafted by Elizabeth Williamson before Bennet added the part that stated “the link to political incitement was clear.”  

Bennet was also asked why the Times never formally apologized to Palin, to which he explained that the paper has a policy of “not apologizing for corrections.”

“The feeling of the standards editors, I think, was that of course The Times regrets its errors,” Bennet said, according to NPR. “They’re correcting them. That’s an extremely painful thing for the journalists and is an expression of regret.”

Closing Arguments: 

In closing arguments on Friday, David AxelrodDavid AxelrodTester knocks Democrats on rural outreach The Memo: No more ‘the former guy’ as Biden tackles Trump head-on Biden’s to-do list for 2022 looks a lot like 2021’s MORE, a lawyer for the Times, argued that the newspaper made a mistake but did not intentionally harm Palin’s reputation, according to The Associated Press

Axelrod asserted that the First Amendment protects journalists ​​“who make an honest mistake when they write about a person like Sarah Palin … That’s all this was about — an honest mistake.”

Meanwhile, Palin’s attorney, Kenneth Turkel, said the newspaper’s lack of apology was “indicative of an arrogance and sense of power that’s uncontrolled,” the AP reported.

“What this dispute is about in its simplest form is power, and lack of power,” Turkel said, claiming this was an example of how the Times “treated people on the right they don’t agree with. … They don’t care. She’s just one of ‘them.’”



Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site