You'd think a news outlet like the New York Times would know the difference between critical coverage and outright lies.

Or that they would know that libel is a subcategory of defamation, so they aren't two separate things.

Or that whipping up hysteria, in the news section no less, when facts will do, is not a good look for "The Paper of Record.'

But here we are -- this is the online headline they ran in response to a recent defamation settlement President Trump won as a result of his lawsuit against ABC News to accompany a story by business-investigations editor David Enrich:

Trump and His Picks Threaten More Lawsuits Over Critical Coverage

The small flurry of threatened defamation suits is the latest sign that the incoming Trump administration appears poised to do what it can to crack down on unfavorable media coverage.

And this too:

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 16, 2024, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Message Sent With a Rise In Threats Of Libel Suits.

Trump is threatening "critical" coverage? Like a dictator? Seems the old Democrat talking point of Trump being a dictator lives large in their minds.

And clouds their judgment.

Over at ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, a former Democrat operative, got his network in hot water by repeatedly claiming that President Trump was guilty of 'rape' in that sorry lawsuit against him which looked to all rational viewers like something that was done for political purposes. Instead of being skeptical on that front, Stephanopoulos went where no court, nor accuser, would go, rounding up a vague 'sexual abuse' allegation, into the full rape and then repeating it as such to his, well, thousands, of viewers.

There was an election on, in case the Times hadn't noticed, and claims like that, which serve as talking points for other media to parrot, tend to damage the campaign of the affected candidate. That's why Trump won in that case with that $15 million settlement.

As I remember from libel law class at Columbia University when I was a student there, studying New York Times v. Sullivan, taught by the great Floyd Abrams himself and distinguished Professor Vincent Blasi (both of whom were so nice to us) the bar is very, very high for public figures (which we studied, in order to define properly) to sue a media outlet, and in those old days, the Times won its case, with the Supreme Court ruling that 'actual malice' or the knowing that a claim was false, was required.

There was slander, and there was libel under the defamation category -- as this law firm explains well. A couple days ago, Managing Editor Andrea Widburg, who has a law degree herself, wrote this excellent piece breaking the matter down.

But the Times couldn't even figure out that slander and libel are two faces of defamation, the writer thought defamation was a different category:

The small flurry of threatened defamation lawsuits is the latest sign that the incoming Trump administration appears poised to do what it can to crack down on unfavorable media coverage. Before and after the election, Mr. Trump and his allies have discussed subpoenaing news organizations, prosecuting journalists and their sources, revoking networks’ broadcast licenses and eliminating funding for public radio and television.

Actual or threatened libel lawsuits are another weapon at their disposal — and they are being deployed even before Mr. Trump moves back into the White House.

Umm, no. They are the same weapon under ordinary circumstances.

Apparently, Stephanopoulos's claims, which could have been fixed with s simple Google search, didn't pass that bar -- so actual malice must have either been obvious enough, or ABC News thought parting with $15 million for the Trump Library was better than a court trial to air it all out.

Fact is, the press has been derelict for decades, with Trump drawing nearly 100% negative media coverage, and with it, a belief by some media operatives that what-the-heck, it's O.K. to lie while we are at it.

It reached a tipping point and Trump bit back, biting ABC in the butt for its reckless disregard for the truth which comes as a result of a long string of fake-news stories pursued by it and its colleague -- the Russia collusion hoax, the fake claims about Trump disparaging veterans at cemeteries, the rape claims that never happened, and even the courts refused to prosecute, the insane politicized prosecutions never before attempted on anyone else.

The fakery hit a wall with Trump standing up for his rights -- and winning.

Instead of making the phony claim that Trump is coming after "critical" press coverage, maybe the Times can consider that Trump is coming after verifiable lies. Lies cross the line, which is what the law has said all along. This is the only check for balance he has, given the blizzard of lies about him in the press.

No, this won't have a chilling effect on coverage, as the Times suggests. It will have a bracing impact on truth, reminding reporters that they can be as critical as they like, but the basic requirement that they tell the truth about others remains operative. It actually ought to buck up their coverage, now that they no longer have the say-anything carte blanche on coverage that they thought they had.

Claiming otherwise is whipping up hysteria, with no basis in facts unless the Times thinks facts are optional so long as the target is Trump. That, too, is not a good look for the Times.

Image: Pexels / Pexels License