On Saturday, February 2, the day before the Super Bowl, the Boston Herald ran a story by John Tomase headlined, "Source: Pats employee filmed Rams."As every football fan knows, that story set off a firestorm in the NFL world, with allegations about a Patriots employee taping the Rams' final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI. There's talk of lawsuits, Senate hearings and NFL sanctions, all emanating from that one Boston Herald story. But was the story accurate?
In his Monday Morning Quarterback column, Peter King of Sports Illustrated suggests today that the story wasn't accurate. King thinks that former Patriots employee Matt Walsh probably doesn't have any evidence at all to show that the Patriots taped the Rams, and King writes, "All we can do is speculate on that right now, but I, for one, believe that tape does not exist." And then King goes further than that:
But if that's all Walsh has, I'll tell you who's in trouble -- the Boston Herald. I'd be surprised if New England owner Bob Kraft doesn't sue the pants off the paper, which reported the Patriots videotaped the Rams' walk through the day before Super Bowl XXXVI, for damaging his brand if the story is not true.A libel lawsuit brought by the Patriots against the Herald would be a shocking turn of events, but I think King is off-base on this one. Winning a libel lawsuit is very difficult, and even if it turns out that the Patriots didn't tape the Rams, to win a suit against the Herald the Patriots would need to prove that the Herald knew that the story was wrong at the time it published it.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that the Patriots would want to see this matter brought to court for the simple reason that it would open up all sorts of people to having to tell their side of this under oath. Does Kraft really want the Herald's lawyers to be able to grill Bill Belichick or Tom Brady about every practice related to taping opposing defenses?
Of course he doesn't. Which is why there's no way Kraft is going to sue the Herald, even if that story was as wrong as King suggests it was.
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-25-2008 @ 4:14PM
tobrien28 said...
Truth is the ultimate defense. King is a moron because the last thing Bob Craft wants is for this story to become a media circus AGAIN and that is what a suit would do. If there is a law suit Matt Walsh would HAVE to testify and produce anything that he has. If Matt Walsh lied to the Herald, he is responsible, not the paper.
Reply
2-25-2008 @ 11:19PM
rrm12 said...
Coming from Ma. I can assure you that the Herald is a paper better suited for the Soap Opera's. In my opinion, they are nothing more than trash writers. If you asked one hundred Bostonians, eighty would agree with me. Maybe they should ask this Walsh to take a Polygraph and get it all over with. If he was told to tape the walk through and he followed instructions, is that a criminal offense? If not why does he need Imunity from prosecution??? That my friends is why I believe it's all bull, because if I was Walsh and was telling the truth I would welcome a Polygraph.
Richiemac
Reply
2-26-2008 @ 1:36PM
Ken said...
I sure wish they would sue the Herald, I am so sick to shoddy journalism and outright lies being splashed on the headlines, it would be nice to see someone pay a price for printing slander and falsehoods... there is hardly any real news coverage anymore, just gossip and half-truths.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 8:43PM
Bouncer77 said...
As someone who works for two newspapers, I can clear this up. In this country, any media outlet is allowed to be negligent when checking their facts (which is most likely what the Herald would claim to no one's surprise considering the type of sensationalist, garbage tabloid that newspaper is) but in order to win a libel suit an "actual malice" standard has to be proven. A plaintiff looking to sue a newspaper would have to prove that the piece in question was printed out of malice and with a blatant disregard for the truth. Other countries hold their newspapers accountable for proving any accusations, but here it's the plaintiff's responsibility to show that the paper knowingly printed a lie. That's why so many celebrities successfully sue the British tabloids but rarely do you see it here. In the United States a rag like the Star or Enquirer is allowed to say that Angelina Jolie was the center of attention at a 50 person gang-bang according to an "unnamed source". When it's shown that she was actually in Darfur feeding orphans at the time they can pretty much offer the defense of, "Oops! Our bad. Guess we should have researched that a little more." The "actual malice" standard is pretty hard to prove.
Reply