[BostonCard]

Not understanding this at all.  As best I can tell, the story that ESPN ran was substantively true; nobody is alleging that the reports ESPN cited didn’t exist. So, under the “actual malice” standard, I’m struggling to see how Taylor would prove that ESPN knowing reported untrue information, when it doesn’t seem like the information was untrue.

I think as a matter of journalistic standards, reporters ought to give the subjects of their stories a legitimate opportunity to respond, but as a legal matter, I don’t think they are required to reach out at all.

So, I honestly don’t know what Taylor is getting at.  I suppose the best case scenario is that the evidence shows that ESPN made the report sound worse than it actually was and he uses that to rehabilitate his image?

BC

[BostonCard]

Not understanding this at all.  As best I can tell, the story that ESPN ran was substantively true; nobody is alleging that the reports ESPN cited didn’t exist. So, under the “actual malice” standard, I’m struggling to see how Taylor would prove that ESPN knowing reported untrue information, when it doesn’t seem like the information was untrue.

I think as a matter of journalistic standards, reporters ought to give the subjects of their stories a legitimate opportunity to respond, but as a legal matter, I don’t think they are required to reach out at all.

So, I honestly don’t know what Taylor is getting at.  I suppose the best case scenario is that the evidence shows that ESPN made the report sound worse than it actually was and he uses that to rehabilitate his image?

BC