Whether his actions fall within Sullivan v. NY Times or not, they are repugnant and far from professional standards.
I get a kick out of the “journalism” industry.
Journalists sit around on talk shows and talk about standards and what is important and how they are doing God’s work. Yet what makes a journalist. I can call myself a journalist, can’t I?
Not like a lawyer or doctor or accountant or barber or undertaker or teacher or country club golf pro or life guard or taxidermist or fisherman or sell milk or truck driver or……
No license or special training for journalist.
So their profession should be more strident in protecting itself.
Yet David Wedge is a hero at the Herald.
Shame on you Pat Purcell! You make all of “us journalists” look bad.
Seems to be an ugly trend that journalist want to be the story. Not report it. Iraq caused a big increase in this, but it was happening before.
I am not impressed with the self-righteous attitude of the journalism profession.
…one thing you might want to consider. If the Herald had fired him between then and now, that may be taken as tantamount to an admission that the Herald had libeled the plaintiff judge. I certainly would have argued that to the jury if I were his lawyer.
<
p>
I don’t read the Herald (or much of the Globe for that matter, except for free on its web site), so I have no way to assess Wedge’s reporting. Maybe he’s a good reporter who screwed up once.
But violation of Sullivan v. NY Times should not be and would not be expected to be the line to cross to violate serious journalistic standards. Also I strongly doubt his dismissal would be admissableand it certainly has not place in the appellate phase.
…argued to the jury during the trial phase, it is unlikely that it could be brought up at the appellate phase. That presumes, of course, that he was dismissed prior to trial.
The Herald printed a vicious and untrue smear. It’s very difficult to be convicted of libeling someone like the judge in this case, but Wedge and his bosses managed it. They should put Wedge on leave, paid or unpaid it is up to them, until their appeals are exhausted. After that, assuming they lose, they should fire him. If they decision is reversed, which would be extraordinary considering the holding, then I imagine you’d agree Ernie that he should keep his job, at least with respect to this particular matter.
“If they decision is reversed, which would be extraordinary considering the holding, then I imagine you’d agree Ernie that he should keep his job, at least with respect to this particular matter.”
<
p>
1. It is not about the penalty but rather the offense. :losing job or some suspension says this is not up to journalistic standards. I don’t like to see anyone lose job. But he has to made an example. Suspension would do.
<
p>
You would agree Bob, that there are offenses not rising to the Sullivan v NY Times Standard that call for disciplinary actions?
<
p>
And I believe Wedges offense is one of them, regardless of case outcome.
where’s charley?
…journalistic standards. The issue is libel. There is a difference.
<
p>
The judge is a public figure, and thus the standards of NYTimes vs. Sullivan apply.
<
p>
One problem I have with this case is that it could have been cleared up if the Herald had run a retraction. But the judge would have had to ask them to do that. Did he?
This case has gotten more attention than any buried correction. And none of it very good for the Herald.
<
p>
If he feels like the Herald was out to do a hatchet job on him–and how can you not–why would he let them off the hook by essentially settling in a backroom deal?
<
p>
They played a little fast and loose thinking they had done enough to cover themselves. So gambled on the courts rather than retract.
<
p>
They guessed wrong. Now the judge has tucked it to them good and hard. And got a few pennies in his pocket for good measure.
The Glob doesn’t have any openings?
They don’t agree with you or the court that what he did was that bad. So why would they fire him?
<
p>
How can you expect them to take an action you find necessary based on a conclusion you make when they don’t accept your conclusion?
<
p>
There’s got to be some sort of debate/logic term for this.