An assertion in a New York Times editorial that linked a 2011 mass shooting to a map created by Sarah Palin’s political action committee was an “honest mistake” and not a part of a conspiracy by the newspaper to smear the former Alaska governor, a lawyer for the Gray Lady said Friday.
Attorney David Axelrod made the argument in his closing statement to the Manhattan federal jury that will soon decide if the Times defamed Palin in the 2017 editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics.”
“It’s about an honest mistake,” Axelrod told the nine-person jury, who started deliberating Friday afternoon. “It wasn’t a political hit piece.”
He then walked the panel through a timeline of the day the editorial was published, arguing that former editorial page editor James Bennet and other Times employees who worked on the piece were rushed to write and edit it before a deadline that night.
Axelrod highlighted mistakes made throughout the day, including by a fact-checker who missed the assertion that the 2011 shooting that wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords was linked to “political incitement,” in part because of the map.
On June 14, 2017, the day the editorial was published online, Bennet edited the editorial after another writer, Elizabeth Williamson, had written a first draft of it.
The editorial was written the day a gunman opened fire on GOP members of Congress at a northern Virginia baseball field — and was supposed to discuss gun control and apparent heated political rhetoric that could’ve led to the shooting.
In his edits, Bennet included a paragraph about the 2011 shooting and asserted there was a clear link between the massacre and political incitement.
“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” the editorial stated.
After he made the edits, Bennet sent an email to the writer who drafted the original version of the piece, and asked her to “take a look.”
Axelrod highlighted that email — and the request to “take a look” — as evidence Bennet had no grand scheme to defame Palin.
“Is that consistent with someone who wanted to publish something false?” Axelrod asked the jury.
He also pointed to the fact that the piece was corrected within hours of its publication to argue there was not a conspiracy to defame Palin.
In his argument, Palin’s attorney, Kenneth Turkel, said she brought the suit because there had to be a line drawn regarding false statements made against a public figure.
The editorial “takes a wound that’s sealed and reopens it,” Turkel said.
He then pointed to emails and other documents that were introduced during the trial to argue that Bennet was pushing a predetermined narrative to bash conservatives.
“They just didn’t care. She’s one of them,” Turkel said, referring to conservatives.
In one email, Turkel said, Bennet requested his staff to search for examples of political rhetoric from both sides of the political aisle that could have incited violence against members of Congress.
“At this point, the narrative for this story is set,” Turkel said.
“It’s absurd. In so many respects, they perpetuate everything they sit there and condemn,” he added.
Turkel continued that he and Palin have no issue with a good-faith political debate, but her suit was about the Times publishing falsehoods against her.
“Have your theories. Have your dialogue. Have your open debate. But don’t say false things. It’s a simple rule. When you know they’re false, it’s even simpler,” he said.
