[BostonCard]

One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.

The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint

Right, but generally, that's where the "actual malice" comes in.  Mere misrepresentation of the facts is not enough of a basis for defamation suit, and selective presentation of the evidence certainly isn't.  Taylor's attorneys are going to have to show that ESPN and the reporter at the very least acted with reckless disregard for the truth or that they knew that what they were publishing was false.  Because it is based on the reporter(s) state of mind, in order to Taylor to win, his lawyers are going to have to show that the reporter and editors at ESPN knew what they were writing was untrue and either didn't care or deliberately published the fake narrative.  I'm sure they will say that they tried to alert ESPN of the falsity, but unless there is evidence that someone at ESPN was like "oh crap, he's right"  ESPN will simply say that every time they publish something that is critical of someone the subject will ask for a retraction and that they believe their interpretation of the report, as published is correct.

The other thing is thrust of the original article is not really in dispute.  Unless the two investigations were made up whole cloth, the main issue is how they were interpreted, but again, differences in interpretation or how they are portrayed is not enough for defamation.  The worst you can say is that the story makes it sound like the reports found against Taylor when at least some of the accusations were found to lack sufficient evidence.  But subsequent reporting found at least some of the allegations were sustained (unless that was made up), and even Taylor released a statement through Stanford saying he was using the investigations to improve "how I interact with others." Like, substantively the investigations happened, if your allegation of defamation is that the report found Taylor was an equal opportunity a-hole rather than a sexist a-hole, you've lost the plot.

BC

[BostonCard]

One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.

The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint

Right, but generally, that's where the "actual malice" comes in.  Mere misrepresentation of the facts is not enough of a basis for defamation suit, and selective presentation of the evidence certainly isn't.  Taylor's attorneys are going to have to show that ESPN and the reporter at the very least acted with reckless disregard for the truth or that they knew that what they were publishing was false.  Because it is based on the reporter(s) state of mind, in order to Taylor to win, his lawyers are going to have to show that the reporter and editors at ESPN knew what they were writing was untrue and either didn't care or deliberately published the fake narrative.  I'm sure they will say that they tried to alert ESPN of the falsity, but unless there is evidence that someone at ESPN was like "oh crap, he's right"  ESPN will simply say that every time they publish something that is critical of someone the subject will ask for a retraction and that they believe their interpretation of the report, as published is correct.

The other thing is thrust of the original article is not really in dispute.  Unless the two investigations were made up whole cloth, the main issue is how they were interpreted, but again, differences in interpretation or how they are portrayed is not enough for defamation.  The worst you can say is that the story makes it sound like the reports found against Taylor when at least some of the accusations were found to lack sufficient evidence.  But subsequent reporting found at least some of the allegations were sustained (unless that was made up), and even Taylor released a statement through Stanford saying he was using the investigations to improve "how I interact with others." Like, substantively the investigations happened, if your allegation of defamation is that the report found Taylor was an equal opportunity a-hole rather than a sexist a-hole, you've lost the plot.

BC