https://thehill.com/homenews/media/47802...ions-story

Don't think he wins here. Basically it was sensationalized click bait. But it was dirty pool by Times. If he does win, it will force a total reworking of editing.

""...Defendants’ actions here are part of a growing journalistic culture of clickbaiting: the use of a shocking headline and/or lede to entice readers to click on a particular article, irrespective of the truth of the headline," he wrote in the lawsuit. "Defendants are fully aware that many, if not most, readers never read past the clickbait and that their takeaway concerning the target of the headline is limited to what they read in the headline."

He contends that the Times published false information about him in the headline and lede of an article about an essay he had written regarding Jeffrey Epstein's donations to MIT.

The headline on the story reads, "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret,....""

The problem with his argument is that if, like he states, most people don't go past the headline, how is he defamed if his name is not in the headline?

The NYT and a Harvard professor.

I’m honestly not sure which one to root for/against.

(01-14-2020 05:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The NYT and a Harvard professor.

I’m honestly not sure which one to root for/against.

yep.....

ding-dong v. ding-dong....