Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
I don't know if there's a legal reason to not back off, too. Their lawyers may be telling them that they're open for a lawsuit if they back off, so they're doubling down.
In my previous consulting life, I distinctly remember a meeting where I was a consultant in the room, and there was a lawyer and a client talking. There was an error in a report that was obvious and agreed-on by all parties, but the lawyer's client didn't want to change the report because it would make the report more vulnerable to legal challenge, and the report was controversial. The conversation went something like this.
Client: We need to correct the report.
Lawyer: Nope. The report is done.
Client: But there's an error in it. It needs to be corrected.
Lawyer: Nope.
Client: But the report is recommending actions based on faulty data. Correcting the data changes the recommendations.
Lawyer: But the report is done and it's not being changed. Therefore, the recommendations stand.
Client: But we all agree that the analysis has an error in it, and we all agree that the report therefore contains recommendations that are incorrect as a result. And we paid for the report.
Lawyer: Doesn't matter. The report is done.
It was pretty eye-opening to watch. The consultant doing the report and their attorney didn't care about doing the right thing. They only cared about not admitting that they were wrong and having their work called into question, even though everyone in the room already knew their work was wrong.
|
There are certain circumstances where that's absolutely right. In those cases, the idea is that you can't unring the bell and by taking action to alter it, you're both bringing attention to the violation and tacitly conceding that there was violation in the first place (though there are some evidentiary rules that can sometimes keep out 'remedial acts' as evidence; there are ways around those).
Once some sort of violation has occurred, it's occurred. You have a couple of approaches - concede the violation and look to mitigate the damages, or double down on defending the violation itself in the hopes that you avoid damages outright.
The Star and TV5 are clearly going after the latter. The Star will probably face no legal consequences here because what they've done is shady, but doesn't rise to the level of actual malice, IMO. But TV5 has a pretty damn tough road in front of them. They knowingly published manipulated audio to paint a particular picture. Now they have their stooge out there calling it non-newsworthy and an editorial decision, but I don't think that'll stand.
I think they engaged in textbook defamation. And the moment they apologize for it, they'll have little in the way of a dispute even if it could mitigate some damages for them. But those damages are gonna be big numbers either way in the event defamation is found so rather than attempt to mitigate, they're gonna dig in and attempt to avoid defamation outright.