General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump launched lawsuit against media just days before Nov. 5 election
On Thursday, Columbia Journalism Review revealed that just days before the presidential election, Trumps lawyer Edward Andrew Paltzik issued a letter to the New York Times and Penguin Random House that demanded $10bn in damages over articles critical of Trump.
The letter, which CJR reviewed, accused the articles authors Peter Baker, Michael S Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner for false and defamatory statements about Trump, adding that the New York Times is a a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic party that wages industrial-scale libel against political opponents.
According to CJR, the letter pointed to two specific stories by Buettner and Craig that relate to their latest book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Fathers Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. The letter also pointed to a 20 October article by Baker titled For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment, as well as a 22 October article by Schmidt titled As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator, CJR reported.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/15/trump-sues-media-outlets-bias
Mike 03
(16,825 posts)if I recall correctly, even Putin took around six months to start eviscerating the media he didn't like. I thought they'd weaken defamation laws first, or maybe have MAGA billionaires start to find spurious reasons to file civil lawsuits, or threaten to buy up the more affordable news sites to make examples of them. He is going after some very well known journalists. We are unlikely to see sequels to the great Carol Leonnig/Phil Rucker books, and maybe not even another from Woodward. Publishers will self-censor too, to avoid lawsuits.
allegorical oracle
(3,076 posts)are incredibly skilled journalists. TSF has hated his inability to win defamation lawsuits when something negative is published about him. Hope judges hold tight to free speech/opinion precedents.