By Margot Cleveland
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
The Washington Post has had a rough couple of days.
First, the “Democracy dies in the dark” outlet spent its Sunday apologizing for
the glowing obituary lede it gave the world’s most dangerous terrorist, Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi, “an austere religious scholar” who murdered himself and three
children by suicide vest when cornered by U.S. forces. Then yesterday, the Post
saw the victory it had achieved earlier this year in the defamation suit
brought by Covington Catholic teen Nick Sandmann evaporate.
Sandmann had sued the Washington Post after the Post and
a bevy of other media outlets cast him “as a smirking MAGA-hat-wearing racist
who had blocked Native American elder Nathan Phillips’s path” to the Lincoln
Memorial,” I reported in July. At the time, Sandmann and his Covington Catholic
High School classmates were waiting for their bus after having attended the
March for Life in D.C. A short clip of the incident “captured Phillips playing
his drum and singing in the center of the group of Covington Catholic students,”
and Phillips told reporters “students had swarmed him as he attempted to make
his way up to the Lincoln Memorial.”
The Washington Post ran Phillips’s tale and either linked
to or referenced the video snip that had since gone viral. Later, however, full
videos came to light that captured the entire incident, and those “showed that
Phillips had not attempted to make his way to the Lincoln Memorial, but had
instead marched into the group of students and stood in front of Sandmann,
beating his drum and singing.”
While the Post and other media outlets quickly issued
corrections, the teenage Sandmann had already been “branded a smirking racist
and rendered a subject of scorn throughout the country.”
Sandmann proceeded to sue the Washington Post, and others
who ran Phillips’ false claims, for defamation. His suit against the Post
proceeded in a federal district court in the young man’s home state of
Kentucky. In July, Judge William Bertelsman, a semi-retired Jimmy Carter
appointee, tossed Sandmann’s case.
In a 30-page opinion, Judge Bertelsman held that, as a
matter of law, Sandmann could not prevail against the Washington Post on his
defamation claim. The court reasoned that Sandmann’s claim failed because the
Post’s articles were not statements “concerning” Sandmann, as they referenced
the group of students or did not include a name or picture of Sandmann. He
further ruled that the Post’s reporting of the incident was “not factual”
because they could not be proven “objectively incorrect.”
Judge Bertelsman’s original opinion was ripe for reversal
by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. But Sandmann’s attorneys, Todd McMurtry and
Lin Wood, opted against appealing immediately, and instead asked Judge
Bertelsman to reconsider his decision. Sandmann’s lawyers also requested
permission to file an amended complaint.
Yesterday, over the Washington Post’s opposition, the
court granted both motions, set aside its earlier decision dismissing
Sandmann’s defamation case and accepted Sandmann’s amended complaint. In reinstating
Sandmann’s defamation case, the court stressed that the amended complaint
relied on the same 33 statements the Post had made in the original complaint.
Judge Bertelsman then noted that after giving “this
matter careful review,” he had decided that Sandmann sufficiently alleged a
claim for defamation against the Post based on the statements identified as
“Statements 10, 11, and 33,” “to the extent that these three statements state
that plaintiff ‘blocked’ Nathan Phillips and ‘would not allow him to retreat.’”
All three statements consisted of the Washington Post
repeating Phillips’s fabled encounter with Sandmann. In what was identified as
Statement 10, the Washington Post wrote: “It was getting ugly, and I was
thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my
song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way,
and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just
blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”
Statement 11 consisted of the Post publishing Phillips’s
recounting of the event as such: “A few of the young people chanted ‘Build that
wall, build that wall,’ the man said, adding that a teen, shown smirking at him
in the video, was blocking him from moving.” The final statement, Statement 33,
also quoted Phillips—as well as misstating his war record—“Phillips, who fought
in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that
guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my
way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”
In ruling that these statements were sufficient to allow
Sandmann’s case to move forward, the court also noted that in his amended
complaint, Sandmann alleged in great detail “that Phillips deliberately lied concerning
the events at issue,” and that but for the Washington Post’s negligence or
malice, they would have realized as much.
Sandmann’s case is far from over. Now, the parties must
engage in the costly and time-consuming process of discovery. And that’s where
things could get really interesting—when the Post is forced to hand over
internal communications concerning its reporting on the MAGA-hat-wearing
Sandmann and his Catholic classmates who had just attended the March for Life.
For now, though, Nick’s father, Ted Sandmann, is just
grateful Judge Bertelsman took the time to reconsider his ruling. “We are
invigorated and united in our purpose to achieve justice for Nicholas and the
other Covington Catholic boys so slandered by the Washington Post and other
news organizations,” the senior Sandmann told me. “This is a huge win for
justice and for the Sandmann family,” attorney Todd McMurtry noted, adding that
“Lin Wood and I are united in our desire to obtain justice for Nicholas.”
No comments:
Post a Comment