The following is a legal update to a previous news analysis and article.
The blogger who publishes information and propaganda under the name "FTVLive" has published the a full retraction statement regarding his defamatory article falsely claiming I am "anti-vaccine."
As part of the new article, blogger Scott Jones, attempts to defend the false and defamatory material he initially published citing anonymous "sources," and then publishes a great deal of vaccine industry propaganda to try to support his indefensible position.
But he did publish the following retraction as requested by my attorney:
“despite a previous report, Sharyl Attkisson is not anti-vaccine, and it is public knowledge that she has received many vaccinations as an adult. Her reporting on vaccine and prescription drug safety has been recognized with an Emmy nomination and a nomination from the Investigative Reporters and Editors group. She has not discussed Sinclair company policy on vaccines with executives, nor has she made any attempt to sway such a policy. We regret that we did not reach out to her to fact check our story prior to publication and regret the error.”
In the article where Jones printed the retraction, he backs off the ludicrous false claim that he had attributed to a supposed anonymous source who "wondered" if I had somehow convinced Sinclair management not to announce a Covid-19 vaccination policy.
Jones now clarifies:
"As for her talking to Sinclair management about the vaccine, we did not claim that happened and have no knowledge of that happening. Also, the Sinclair employee that was cited in the story, also has no knowledge of that happening, and as stated in our report, the employee 'wonders' if that happened."
The blogger exposes himself as using the most unjournalistic of practices: a propaganda technique in which he smears somebody with unsupported rumor or innuendo without contacting the source for comment, and then defends the defamation by stating, I never said it happened or I said I thought it happened, somebody just wondered if it happened.
The blogger clearly doesn't understand libel and defamation law and seems to believe as long as he publishes an opinion attributable to some alleged source, that it legally defensible.
Of course, that is untrue.
Read my original article and legal letter here.
We are still communicating with the other offender who published the defamatory information: NewsBlues.
Some nobody called you an antivaxxer online. Welcome to the club!
Respectfully, attempting to shut down this nobody undermines free speech. The principled approach is to combat speech with more speech, not threats of government force.
Robert McMahon says
Free speech is fine but libelous, defamatory speech is not. Attkisson has a "brand" that exhorts credibility and she (and her attorneys) are rightfully protecting that brand.
Nonsense Ted! Free speech is fine but libelous, defamatory speech is not if it is not based in fact. Attkisson has a "brand" that exhorts credibility and one that has been built up over many years. As with any business, she (and her attorneys) are rightfully protecting that brand.
"Free speech is fine but libelous, defamatory speech is not."
Do you not see the contradiction here? Free speech is either free...or it is not. So what you're really saying is that *some* speech is fine, but some is not.
"she (and her attorneys) are rightfully protecting that brand."
I said nothing about the right but about the principled approach. Brands can be protected using threats, sure, but proving defamation in court is extremely difficult as actual damages must be shown. Some random guy on the internet with his silly blog is unlikely to have cause real damages. Again, for those concerned about freedom of speech, this is an issue.
Jim K says
Ted...your not well thought out. You don't seem to understand free speech is a right protecting us from Government censorship, not one that provides for free reign to libel anyone you want because 'free speech'. .
God hates a false witness telling lies. It is the work of Satan
At this stage-- during a global cognitive dysfunction epidemic--it's par for the course to witness smears and hubris on a daily basis. I'm glad the retraction was issued, however--what appears to be the case with regard to the mechanics of propaganda and indoctrination-- many people remember the lie/smear and never question motives or agendas of the guilty party. In addition, Project Veritas has published the disclosure of a CBS whistleblower: "Brett Mauser, who worked at CBS San Antonio, could no longer stand the corruption he was witnessing inside the newsroom." And this is a further indication that our so-called 'legacy' media sources are not interested in journalism. Just as Attkisson's book, "Slanted" outlines the emergence of "The Narrative" as the foundation for fake news entertainment programming.
Unbelievable, just disgusting. My only question when it comes to insignificant sources of information like that blogger is why. What benefit is it to him to smear you? Or it is just pandering to his majority, no matter how small?