Even more important from a blogger's perspective: Libel a private citizen on your blog, and an enterprising attorney will eat you for lunch.

--|PW|--

When it's a private citizen, isn't it slander even if it's true?

What if we speculate on the reasons why CBS is guarding its sources?

Surely protecting the identity of ones sources doesn't extend to those who deliberately pass phony information to you?

If Dan's source were Karl Rove, would CBS be protecting him? So lets rule that one right out.

Is it legitimate to speculate about the timing of this report - coming simultaneously with the Texans for Truth ads attacking the President's NG record and kicking off the DNC's "Fortunate Son" campaign? Hmmmmm.

The start in getting more information is to line up the most obvious inferences.

Jeff -- I have no idea. I know libel in general terms ... not so much in particulars.

--|PW|--

Bill: Well I'd say speculation about politicians is of a different class than private citizens. But where does the line get drawn? Court cases get decided on stuff like that. (Are you and I public figures? Is Kevin? Ace? Allah?)

Yeah this guy's given some interviews. But how "public" is he?

Jeff: I'm not sure it's that cut and dried, but I'm sure a lawyer would have an answer.

I doubt very much that it's too late for Tim or Kevin or those guys to just publicly and immediately backpedal and say, "Wait a minute, I don't know this, I'm just guessing, this could be bullshit." I think they could be stepping into a pile of very deep shit if they aren't careful like that though.

We may be learning two very important lessons this week: 1) Collaborative journalism is incredibly powerful, and 2) It has potential pitfalls.

If a newspaper can be sued, so can a blogger. There's a reason newspapers have editors, and it's not JUST to correct copy. It's also to make sure the paper doesn't get its ass sued off.

When blogging was obscure, such concerns were the stuff of idle speculation. I believe we are pretty close to being past "idle" speculation and into "serious concern."

Maybe I'm just being a handwringing sissy. I kind of hope so. But still....

I don't like doing it for how it looks.

But yes, they should heavily qualify theur statements. That's the key.

Listen to Dean. He refers to editors whose job included keeping a paper from getting sued. Several years ago, I was one of those editors. There's nothing quite like looking at questionable copy and hoping that your judgment is sound enough to keep your employer from landing in court.

--|PW|--

Public figures come in two forms: the all-purpose public figure one who has achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety as to become a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts and the limited-purpose public figure one who injects herself or is drawn by others into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure as to her role in that controversy. Burkett is a limited purpose public figure. He has been on a crusade on this exact issue for years. He is no Richard Jewell.

I just rec'd this info...says CBS has confirmed Mapes is source of docs. You can read it at this link...I dont know how to post it like some of you do but here it is

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/september/0913_mapes_documents.shtml

Well, Mapes may have been the one at CBS who initally obtained them, but she is not the source of the docs.

But didn't she fly to TX to interview Burkett? Or am I totally confused?

just sounds like further evidence pointing to this Burkett guy...and didn't Burkett have dealings with Martin
Heldt (the freaky farmer with an obsession over Bush's guard stint) ??

Becca, you are correct. I misunderstood the point you were making. Burkett is up to his eyeballs in this. Which makes it so mysterious that he isn't hitting every talk show on televsion and radio as we speak.

He and "freaky farmer" may be laying low right about now....ooooorrr maybe trying desperately to find an IBM selectric with superscript, true font spacing and MS Word tab/margin defaults....LOL

My opinion is that they were advised to lay low because both of them make rather poor impressions. But it can't last long. I don't think Burkett can control himself. He has a personal vendetta against Bush. If he does go public and denies that he is the source, if in fact he is, it isn't going to help him in the long run.

and it sure as heck won't help the Kerry campaign. Good Golly what a mess they are in.

The Burkett speculation came from Newsweek. We point out what media outlets are saying all the time. Sure, it might be rumor at this point, but as long as its attributable to a (fairly) reputable source, why not "report" it -- if even as speculation?

Did anyone read my piece :-).

Notice the wording and the title. It's "On The Trail Of The Forger" and I note that both of them are suspect due to their heavy previous involvement in the Bush military documents. I did not proclaim Heldt (or Burkett) as "the forger," just a highly visible (if you're looking in the right places) candidate with motive and means.

Remember, Kevin, that defamation laws can vary from state to state. When you start naming somebody as a "possible candidate," you don't know WHAT state's standards will be applied to your blog post.

--|PW|--

Pennywit: While defamation law is codified by state law, it is controlled by federal constitutional law. No one has libeled Burkett. Once again, in this controversy, Burkett is considered a public, not a private, figure. And speaking of Burkett, where the hell is he?

I agree wholeheartedly with Dean's advice. Be careful what you say about private citizens. If what you say is true, that might get you off in the end--after an expensive lawsuit. But you don't want to go there. Also, the standard for libel is lower for private citizens. All they have to prove is you got it wrong and damaged their reputation. Public figures are safer. They have to prove you knew it was wrong and disseminated it anyway. Even if you're right, a lawsuit can break you.

All that said, I am amazed at what you guys have accomplished on this story so far. A little cheat-beating is definitely in order. Just don't get carried away and end up doing just what CBS did.

Also, what makes someone a public figure can be disputed--you might have to go to court and hope that they agree with your definition.

Wow, more over generalized, not specific to the facts, bad legal advice.