I agree with the plaintiff, Naked Capitalism. The Washington Post’s article accusing Naked Capitalism of being “fake news” did not cite any actual examples of “fake news” from Naked Capitalism. Also, the Washington Post did not interview anyone from Naked Capitalism when it wrote the article in question. The Washington Post’s irresponsible behavior meets all the criteria that are necessary for a defamation lawsuit. If anyone here is guilty of publishing “fake news,” it is the Washington Post:
Website Labeled ‘Fake News’ Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation
December 5, 2016
One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.
A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.
“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”
Naked Capitalism is a finance and economics blog started in December 2006, with a stated goal of “shedding light on the dark and seamy corners of finance.”
Moody demands a retraction of the story and a public apology from WaPo in the letter, threatening a suit if the paper does not comply. He lists a series of damages to the site itself, as well as the writers and editors associated with the site; these include “ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement” for writers and editors.
Other mainstream news outlets criticize The Washington Post for running the story.
“The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique,” Adrian Chen wrote in The New Yorker regarding the WaPo story. “But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess.”
And Patrick Maines criticized the story in The Hill, calling it “perhaps the shoddiest piece of feature writing since Rolling Stone published its blatantly false story about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.”
“You have made damaging false accusations against Naked Capitalism,” Moody concludes in the letter. “Please immediately remove these from the web and provide an equivalent opportunity to respond. Please see the attached concerning your obligation to retain documents and electronically stored information relating to Fake News. I look forward to hearing from you within three business days.”
Fantastic news! Federal court rules against Obama’s attempt to keep low income black children trapped in horrible government schools!
Although this wonderful news happened three months ago, I just found out about it now: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Obama’s attempt to keep low income black children trapped in horrible government schools.
Some background information…
In August 2013, the Obama administration sued Louisiana to try to bring an end to its school voucher program – a program which had just been passed in 2012.
Under the Louisiana program, both of the following criteria had to be met in order for a student to get a school voucher. First, the student must come from a family whose income is below 250% of the poverty level. And second, the current public school that the student is attending must be rated as “C” or below.
86% of students who received vouchers had used those vouchers to flee from public schools which had been rated as “D” or “F.”
Only the most vulnerable children were eligible for the vouchers – the poorest students attending the worst schools.
Obama’s reason for filing the lawsuit was that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”
However, in response to Obama’s claim that the vouchers discriminated against blacks, Louisiana Education Superintendent John White pointed out that almost all of the students using the vouchers were black, and said that “it’s a little ridiculous” for Obama to claim that these vouchers caused discrimination against blacks. The Washington Post reported that 90% of the students who received the vouchers were black.
It’s also worth noting that only students whose parents requested such vouchers were eligible to participate in the voucher program. Obama was therefore claiming that parents wanted their own children to be discriminated against. Obama was extremely wrong on this. These parents did not want their children to be discriminated against. In reality, what these parents wanted was for their children to have a chance at a better education.
This also makes Obama a hypocrite, because while he was living in both Chicago and Washington D.C., he always sent his own children to private schools. Does Obama really want us to believe that he subjected his own children to racial discrimination by sending them to private schools?
Furthermore, two different studies, one by Ph.D. students at the University of Arkansas, and the other sponsored by the state of Louisiana, both found that this voucher program made racial integration better, not worse. This further proves that Obama is a liar, and that his entire claim against these vouchers is bogus.
In September 2013, the Washington Post editorial board criticized Obama in this editorial, which is titled, “The Justice Department bids to trap poor, black children in ineffective schools.”
In April 2014, the Daily Signal published this article, which is titled, “Meet one of the students Eric Holder is blocking by standing in the schoolhouse door.”
Fortunately, in November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Obama’s attempt to keep low income black children trapped in horrible government schools. The court’s ruling can be read here.
Casino sues winning gamblers and card manufacturer because casino employees did not shuffle the cards
This casino is suing the card manufacturer, and the players who won lots of money, because the casino’s employees didn’t shuffle the cards, which allowed the players to win 41 times in a row.
This has got to be about the most ridiculous lawsuit that I have ever heard about. Yes, I realize there are quite a few contenders in that contest, but this one is even dumber than the other dumb ones… I think.