Steve Fossett faked own death? "News of the World" states CAP says possible

Started by dogboy, July 26, 2008, 11:52:54 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BuckeyeDEJ

Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity. Either way, it still doesn't allow a newspaper to publish falsehoods.

A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things.

On top of that, the story was factually incorrect in many, many ways. Read the article, and you'll see it was almost totally pulled out of someone's ass.

Libel in America is not always decided in court by actual malice. And thanks to our legal system, you can bring a lawsuit at any time, with or without merit, so newsgathering organizations err on the side of caution, almost every time. No one wants to lawyer up, no matter how silly the accusation.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

wuzafuzz

WOW!  Yesterday I printed that article, shredded it, and sprinkled it on my lawn.  Today the grass is taller and greener!   :angel:
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

dogboy

It seems this story was printed by the respectable newspaper, the Telegraph (London) and was picked up by the News of the World from there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2462912/Adventurer-Steve-Fossett-may-have-faked-his-own-death.html

The article's author, Chris Irvine, writes for the Telegraph

mikeylikey

I sure hope this CAP Officer had nothing to do with this.  Even if it was a snide side remark, we all should be careful with what comes out of our mouths.  It could possibly begin an investigation, and make CAP look bad AGAIN.

I foresee a memo from the National Commander limiting our access to media because of this.  NHQ and its volunteers are so good at knee-jerk type reactions......reference the ATV/ Golf Cart fiasco! 
What's up monkeys?

flyerthom

Quote from: mikeylikey on July 27, 2008, 03:23:24 AM
Quote from: Smithsonia on July 27, 2008, 02:50:43 AM
WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

Sir, you need to turn in your polo shirt and khaki shorts along with your 2B and report for remedial training with the US Ranger Corps..........immediately!   >:D

No worries mickeylikey, everyone knows with Area 51 being in NV, it's really a top secret ah special entertainment complex for government officials... >:D


As for those quotes, I know Lt Col Ryan. I'm calling them a steaming pile of male cattle food digestion byproduct. I'm not buying it.
TC

dogboy

Obviously, I'm not in a position to determine whether the CAP Officer in question made these statements or not.  However, I'm sorry to disagree with most of your comments.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 27, 2008, 05:27:39 PM
Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-goverment agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.

QuoteA "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated.

A "quote" can be altered more than cleaning up grammar and still be protected.

We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used.

We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279-280, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 342, unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement.


Mason v. New Yorker Magazine (1991)



QuoteLibel in America is not always decided in court by actual malice. And thanks to our legal system, you can bring a lawsuit at any time, with or without merit, so newsgathering organizations err on the side of caution, almost every time. No one wants to lawyer up, no matter how silly the accusation.

I can only assume the author of this statement doesn't look at the tabloids while in the supermarket checkout line. Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit but nothing could be further from the truth that news publishers are afraid of lawsuits because of the expense or bother. Tabloids know that a simple motion for Summary Judgment will dispose of almost all defamation lawsuits long before they ever get to a jury. Responsible news organizations have ethical standards to uphold.

From the perspective of the plaintiff (the one who claims to be defamed), a defamation lawsuit is almost always a loser. The plaintiff has to pay his own lawyer, win or lose, and awards are usually small. As a general rule, damages can only compensatory - - that is the plaintiff has to show an actual, or at least estimatable, monetary lose. What damages could a CAP PAO Officer claim?

mikeylikey

Quote from: dogboy on July 27, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
What damages could a CAP PAO Officer claim?

That she will be involuntarily 2b'd or forced to resign based solely on the appearance (and not actual act) of what she supposedly said. 

The appearance of misdoings in CAP is enough to be kicked out.  We can thank a previous National Commander for that. 
What's up monkeys?

BuckeyeDEJ

Quote from: dogboy on July 27, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
Obviously, I'm not in a position to determine whether the CAP Officer in question made these statements or not.  However, I'm sorry to disagree with most of your comments.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 27, 2008, 05:27:39 PM
Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-goverment agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.
Nope. A limited public figure still has protections. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said.

Quote
QuoteA "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated.

A "quote" can be altered more than cleaning up grammar and still be protected.

Yes, that's true. Having spent my entire professional life doing credible journalism, I'm going to weigh in with real-world experience. Here's how a quote can be altered ethically:
-- Cleaning up grammar.
-- Condensing a quote by using ellipses or speech tags to "tighten up" or get to the point faster.
-- Indirectly quoting (not direct quotes in quotation marks -- half to 3/4 of most news stories are indirect quotes)

QuoteWe reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used.

We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279-280, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 342, unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement.

Sounds like indirect quotes to me. Not fabricated ones. There's a huge difference.

QuoteI can only assume the author of this statement doesn't look at the tabloids while in the supermarket checkout line.
Nope, nor would I need to. And the legion of loopholes and disclaimers those people use to print that garbage is not what reputable publishers rely on.

I can't imagine anyone would be crazy enough to sell libel insurance to the Star, Globe or Weekly World News.

No one wants a lawsuit. We'd rather be at work. The only lawsuit most newspapers will pursue is an FOIA action, unless there's some great principle involved, like, oh, say, the Pentagon Papers case.

As far as damages, a CAP public affairs officer could claim defamation of character, for starters. I'm not a lawyer, though. Let the sharks sort all that out. What I DO know is CAP PA and my professional job. I know right and wrong, and can't sit still for something unethical.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Major Lord

This reminds me of soemthing they told us in the Police Academy: "Everything you read in the newspaper is 100% correct, except those stories you have personal knowledge of!"

By the way, was the Major who allegedly made the statements the one who we saw on TV with the hoop earrings, wrong patches and wearing a flight suit?

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

mikeylikey

What's up monkeys?

dogboy

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 27, 2008, 05:27:39 PM
Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-government agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.

Nope. A limited public figure still has protections. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said.


<sigh> Truly, I despair at my seeming inability to explain the law to a layperson.

Under US law, it does not matter whether the PAO is a public official, public figure, or a "limited public figure", the legal standard is the same.

To prevail in a defamation suit, this plaintiff must prove "actual malice". Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth AND that the statement was false.

As a practical matter, these are impossible hurtles to overcome, unless the plaintiff has a authenticated recording of all conversations she had with the publisher.

Finally, permit me to caution posters on this topic.

"Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said."

"A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things."

"There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!"

Each of these could be defamatory. Since the writer of each of these statements has no way of knowing whether the printed statements were correctly quoted or not (apart from the speaker's reputation), if the quotations are turn out to be correctly made, these writers could be found to have acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The CAP might also well be liable, especially since some of the statements were signed with the name, rank and position held by the writer. This implies that the writer is speaking for the organization.

These statements are probably legally protected:

You're assuming that she actually said any of that. The News of the World has paid out a fair amount of money in settlements to various celebrities for printing "quotes" that were pure fabrications.

Seriously, theres more fact in a torn page of The Onion than in a month's worth of NOTW.

I can't anyone is believing any of this.  If you do....I got a bridge for sale, where you can see big foot every other Tuesday.

I don't see Lt Col Ryan making a comment like that. I know her and Lordmanor, she's in your wing so perhaps you know her too.


Again, I remind readers that the author of the article in question is employed by the Telegraph (London) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, a reputable and conservative newspaper. Apparently, the News of the World picked up the story from the Telegraph and did not originate it.







IceNine

If this does turn out to be true I would have no choice but to applaud the guy.

I can't count the number of times I've wanted to disappear

I bet Mr. Fossett, Mr. Presley, Mr. Hoffa, and 2 Pac are all sipping Mai Tai's on some awesome Bermuda based island right now right now
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

BuckeyeDEJ

Quote from: dogboy on July 28, 2008, 12:05:51 AM
"Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said."

"A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things."

"There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!"

Each of these could be defamatory. Since the writer of each of these statements has no way of knowing whether the printed statements were correctly quoted or not (apart from the speaker's reputation), if the quotations are turn out to be correctly made, these writers could be found to have acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

We do know that as a CAP PA, she would have been in hot water from the getgo (from NHQ PA as well as the IC) had she actually said those things. Nothing a CAP PA says to the media hasn't been approved by the IC. If she went renegade and talked out of turn -- and we don't know that she did, and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt -- she'd already be in deep.

Oh, yeah, I think I said all those things you quoted. Leave it to an attorney to point that out (rolling eyes, laughing)....

QuoteThe CAP might also well be liable, especially since some of the statements were signed with the name, rank and position held by the writer. This implies that the writer is speaking for the organization.
They aren't signed by her ("signed" infers her authentication) -- they're attributed to her by a reporter, and reporters don't give prior review. Do we really know that she said those things? No. So am I questioning the integrity of a reporter? Yes. He didn't do his homework. (For instance, CAP doesn't have HH-60s with infrared.) I'm not defaming the reporter, just criticizing his work for being sloppy at best. I question the veracity of the entire article based on multiple facts, not just the quotes.

It's time for a fat correction. At least, that's what a reputable American paper would do.

QuoteAgain, I remind readers that the author of the article in question is employed by the Telegraph (London) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, a reputable and conservative newspaper. Apparently, the News of the World picked up the story from the Telegraph and did not originate it.

Even trusted news sources have foul-ups.
-- The New York Times had a reporter a few years ago whose entire body of work was under investigation. The reporter was discredited and left the paper.
-- The Plain Dealer of Cleveland had one about 30 years ago -- after his departure from the PD, the guy went on to be a successful screenwriter in Hollywood.
-- A Boston Globe columnist was disgraced for plagiarism a few years ago.
-- There was an investigation into reporting at a major national newspaper a few years ago for the same sort of shenanigans as at the NYT.
-- And there are others.

Yeah, we bashed a London tab for incredibility. Lesson for them: Don't crib someone else's story without at least verifying the information. Lesson for us: Regardless of whether these things were really said -- and I stand by my belief that she didn't say any of that stuff -- IOs and PAs (and I'm one) must be careful what they say to the media (also me).

DISCLAIMER: Since this is a discussion forum for opinion, as well as a platform for sharing knowledge, what I say is entirely my opinion.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Hawk200

Personally, I have to wonder about the rest of the story when they state that Civil Air Patrol Black Hawks were scanning the desert. It's one of those little things in the story that tosses credibility completely out of the window. Don't suppose someone can show me one of these CAP Black Hawks? I'd really love to see one.

lordmonar

If nothing else....this is a good lesson for our relations with the press/OPSEC class.

I know Col Ryan...and as far as PAO duties go...she is a professional in every way.   
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

dogboy

Quote from: Hawk200 on July 28, 2008, 03:33:24 AM
Personally, I have to wonder about the rest of the story when they state that Civil Air Patrol Black Hawks were scanning the desert. It's one of those little things in the story that tosses credibility completely out of the window. Don't suppose someone can show me one of these CAP Black Hawks? I'd really love to see one.


I think it is an understandable error. The CAP was coordinating the search and Blackhawks (from Nevada Army National Guard) were searching. CAP and National Guard wear virtually the same uniforms. The distinction between the National Guard and the Civil air Patrol is not one that most Americans understand, so it's not surprising that an English reporter would confuse them.

Recall that a voluntary, unpaid civilian auxiliary to one of our armed forces is a uniquely American phenomena found not found elsewhere in the world.

wingnut55

I was on the Fossett Mission and people are deceived by the accounts.

California Wing CAP ran the mission for CAP in California, forbidden by Nevada Wing CAP to use their radio repeaters or "Stray into Nevada" while in a Grid. This later changed when nothing was found.

Nevada Wing CAP ran the mission for Nevada CAP.

Nevada Air Guard, California Air Guard did their own thing including fly in Grids with CAP aircraft, we found out on the Fly that a C-130 was in our Grid.

The Hiltons ran their own search, 10 or 15 helicopters, god knows how many small aircraft, all in our grids.

THE California CAP ICs did an outstanding job, I was proud of the guys who flew 7 hours a day for 6 days, at 1000 feet or less, tough work.

Is he out there? you bet! I have had several missions where the plane was never found, he is rolled up in a ball under a tree, remember he was flying at 130 mph at a few hundred feet AGL at one point in the flight. Not much room for error flying like that. yes we heard some rumors, and all of these have been discussed here, credible? maybe?

I hope the man is in Margueritaville?  but so is Elvis, JFK, Amelia, and other ghosts.

flyguy06

Why are ya'll even wasting time on this issue? Its obviously a ruse. I seriously doubt any of this is true. If it were,it would have come out in American media first. I also seriously doubt that the PAO lady , LT Col Ryan or MAJ or whatever made such statements. She was very professional on TV and it Doesnt seem in her character. AGain, why would a British newspaper pick up the story and no American paper? Doesnt make sense.

So, why are  we even talking about this?

mikeylikey

Quote from: lordmonar on July 28, 2008, 04:53:19 AM
If nothing else....this is a good lesson for our relations with the press/OPSEC class.

I know Col Ryan...and as far as PAO duties go...she is a professional in every way.   

That means absolutely nothing here.  People can be the most awesome trusting and professional individual they can be, and still make a mistake. 

Not saying she did any of what is discussed in the article, but were you standing next to her at every interview.....even after the end of the mission?  Do you personally know she is not capable of making these comments?  Everyone is capable of goofing up. 
What's up monkeys?

lordmonar

I guess I should say....that in my working with Col Ryan....I find the report that she said these things to a report hard to believe. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP