Word: adler
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...what we have is a sort of unholy alliance between the left-leaning media and Big Media against Adler, The New Yorker, the military and Big Law. William Safire, The New York Times' resident right-winger, also got into the act recently. He gave the "offended media giants, radical hatchet men and suing spooks" 40 lashes with a wet noodle for suppressing publication of her book--something media-types, he said, should be the last...
This is where it gets interesting. Around the same time CBS delivered its response, media critics in the lefty press began taking Adler to task. "Her reporting was sloppy and her conclusions absurd," wrote The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, who should know. Geoffrey Stokes of The Village Voice chimed in with similar sentiments, calling Adler's work "dishonest at its core." These words, of course, are reminiscient of those of the capitalist chieftans of CBS and Time...
That's all not well and bad, and Adler gets no argument from anyone for criticizing Time's sloppiness and CBS's unethical journalistic practices. She is also on solid ground criticizing the overly agressive tactics of Cravath lawyers and the decision by both defendants to defend to the hilt stories they knew were far from unimpeachable...
While the claims of CBS and Time were declared to be unfounded, the courts did not find them guilty of "actual malice" or of a "reckless disregard" for the truth. Hence, they were not guilty of libel. Adler writes that such a standard of libel is incoherent. When calling for a reinterpretation of the libel laws, however, she is not very convincing--or credible...
...Media may well be unjustifiably arrogant and self-confident. But does Adler really want to make it easier for plaintiffs to win libel suits? Time and CBS can afford Cravath's impressive services. But what about the Podunk Daily Herald? In a "coda" to the book Adler does acknowledge that any changes in the libel laws, especially under the new Supreme Court, would likely be a change for the worse. What she doesn't mention is an interesting, and relevant, bit of her past...