Take a look at an interesting libel case against The New York Times that was settled last month before going to trial.
Basic story goes like this. During the presidential campaign in August, The New York Times published a long news article about the then-presumptive Republican candidate for president, John McCain, long known as an ethics reformer. The news article reported that Mr. McCain "had at times been blind to his own potential conflicts of interest."
In particular, it reported about a close relationship with Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman. The article said that some McCain advisers worried that the relationship between McCain and Iseman had become romantic. After the article was published, both denied that they had had an affair.
So, Iseman sued the newspaper for libel.
But both parties agreed to settle the case out of court.
Here's what I'd like you to do. Click here to read The New York Times article that tells of the settlement. On that page, you'll see links to other articles: 1) A Note to Readers; 2) Statement from Iseman's lawyers; and 3) Joint Statement.
(As an option, if you want, you can also read the original complaint and the original New York Times article that led to the libel complaint.)
After reading all of that, post a comment about what you think would've happened had the case gone to trial. Would the newspaper have won, as they say in their statement? Or, do you agree with Iseman's lawyers that she would likely have been classified as a private person, making it easier for her to win?
What do you think, and why?
18 comments:
I believe Vicki Iseman would have lost the libel case because she is not considered a private figure. Because she is a lobbyist in Washington, she deals with public affairs and politics. Her close relationship with McCain, regardless if it was just a friendship or not, puts her in the public eye also. If she wanted to be considered a "private figure" she should not have entered a career that often results in being portrayed in the media, which in turn, makes her a public figure. If the newspaper could prove she was a public figure, I believe the newspaper would have won the case.
Rachel Bell M/W
I think the whole case is rather ridiculous. I don't think Iseman has a case. Her job is to be public, is to influence legislation. She has to be present, to make herself known. Therefore, i believe she made herself public, and even more so if she's working with a man who is running to be President of the United States. That makes you public. Nothing is more public than the President of the United States, or a guy who's running for the job. Her reaction seems like fear that something true might actually leak.
Lauren Miller- (9:30) - I agree with Rachel. I believe she would have lost the libel because she is not a private figure. Most people that enter the world of politics take on the role as a public figure. With this role comes specific obligations. One must understand that at any given point in time your past and present can be dug up and unveiled to the public. If there was factual evidence that she did infact have an affair with the former presidential candidate then the newspaper has every right to print the story. Everyone who steps into the public eye, especially when it comes to politics needs to realize that everything they do or have done is now information for the rest of the world to know.
Denise Mamo T/TH 9:30
I think it's a tough call because I don't think that she totally falls into the public figure category. I do think that the settlement was strange though. It makes me think that she knew she would've lost her case and that perhaps the story in The Times had some truth to it.
I too believe she would have lost the libel case for falling under the eye of a public figure. I thought the outcome was wierd in which New York Times allowed her to write an article in her defence. However, anything these days is better than going to court and having a big drawn out case.
Silvia Irizarry T&TH 9:30AM I agree with Rachel Bell...Iseman is a public figure. She is working for a McCain who was running for president of the United States...how much more public can she get?!? I don't think she even had a case to begin with! IF this case would have gone to court the NY Times for sure would have won as long as they could prove that Iseman is a public figure and not a private person...which I'm sure they could do! I know that people settle out of court all the time for many reason but it just makes me think that the story about McCain and her are true.
I googled both images of Cindy Mccain and Vicki Iseman and here is my conclution:
Senator Mccain did not do it , his wife is better looking:)
Now, seriosly, the fact that the paper has posted an apologetic statement proves that the claims were false.
Iseman is a professional lobbyist and all what she wanted is to clear her good name.Since she was after justice and not after monetary comensation it was possible to settele this case.
I agree with Noam. After the Clinton scandal, I don't think any prospect for President of the United States would dare go there.
As much as I would have wanted Iseman to win, she probably wouldn't have.
I kinda feel bad for public figures who get brought into drama scandals and lies all because a journalist was looking to write an interesting article.
However, as a public figure comes publicity and interest by the public to be in your business. It is part of the business, especially in politics.I think that would have been the newspapers argument and they would have won.
TTH 12:30
As a lobbyist, Iseman is a public figure and therefore would have a greater burden of proof in court.
Ms. Iseman had a legitimate reason to be upset and even go as far as filing libel charges, but I think she would have ultimately lost the case because of her profession as a lobbyist. She would have been considered a public figure and that would have been too much for her and her lawyers to overcome.
Matthew Champion
T/Th 12:30
I think Vikki Iseman saved herself a huge trial by settling out of court and accepting the Time's explanation because I think that if the case went to trial Iseman would be held as a public figure and therefore have the greater burden of proof. It would have been extremely hard to prove and probably would have lost the trial. I believe she knew this and thats why she settled, making it easier on herself in the long run.
T-Th 9:30 Summer Ratliff
I believe Iseman did the best thing by settling out of court. She is a public figure by being a Washington lobbyist. She knew what she was getting into when she took on that roll and with that roll comes media and being a public figure. Also she is in the spot light for her relationship with McCain. For sure she would have lost the case. As I read over these articles it made me realize how happy I am to live a simple easy non-public figure life.
Iseman should be considered a public figure. I agree completely with the Times assessment that the nature of the lobbyist job justifies strict criticism and a watchful eye from the media.
Amy Lane T-TH 12:30
If taken to trial, I believe Iseman, ultimately would have been deemed a public figure. She is a lobbyist and close friends with a presidential candidate. I would like to see a court rule that she is not a public figure. However, I believe Iseman was smart settling with the article release by Times and not seeking rewards for damages done to her reputation. The case would have been decided as quickly as they could determine her a public or private figure.
If taken to trial, I believe the newspaper would have won the case. Iseman would not only be viewed as a public figure due to her well-known status as a lobbyist and her then-position as a good friend to a presidential candidate. Either way, though, I do not think Iseman had a strong enough case to win the trial. The newspaper suggested that outside sources had made the possible linkage to a relationship and they were just passing on their opinions.
Jessica Elmore T/TH 9:30
Without a doubt I think Iseman would have lost had this case gone to court. I think Iseman must have known she didn't stand a chance being considered as a private person and knew settling out of court was her best bet.
I agree with Noam, she is better looking. Also, if the papers apologised, then it is obviously false. Although, if it was true, Iselman would not have won because she voluntarily stepped into the public.
Sajen
MW 2pm
I'm still kind of confused about how the court decides if a person is a public figure, or a private person. My gut wants to say that she is a public figure, and would probably lose the case because she'd have to prove actual malice. But, the in the Gertz case, he was considered private even though he willingly represented a family in a very public case.
Hmmmm..
Yeah, I'd say she's a public figure, and would probably lose.
Post a Comment