Following the dismissal of his initial defamation lawsuit, Donald Trump has filed an amended 40-page complaint against The New York Times, Penguin Random House, and two reporters, while maintaining a $15 billion compensatory damages claim and seeking punitive damages. The amended complaint presents an itemized list of allegations, referencing specific publications and statements. The suit, filed in Florida, revises a previous suit that was dismissed due to its excessive length and redundant content. The legal action pertains to news articles and a book discussing Trump’s work on “The Apprentice” and his inheritance, alleging factual inaccuracies in the reporting.
Read More
A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, citing violations of rules requiring a clear and concise explanation for relief. Judge Steven Merryday deemed the 85-page complaint excessive and unsuitable for presenting arguments, giving Trump 28 days to submit a revised complaint. The lawsuit, focusing on a book and articles by The New York Times reporters, accused the outlet of “defamatory and disparaging statements.” The New York Times responded by stating that the lawsuit lacks merit and is an attempt to stifle independent reporting.
Read More
Judge tosses Trump’s $15B defamation suit against New York Times, Penguin Random House, and the immediate reaction, honestly, is a breath of fresh air. It’s like watching a particularly tedious piece of homework get thrown in the trash – satisfying and a bit of a relief. The judge, Steven D. Merryday, wasted no time in calling out the suit for what it was: a mess. He bluntly stated it “stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements” of legal procedure. The entire thing sounds like it was drafted by someone who skipped law school, and the judge essentially echoed that sentiment. It sounds like Trump’s complaint was a rambling, incoherent mess.… Continue reading
The subject matter directly confronts the core issue: Trump’s decision to sue The New York Times. This action, we’re told, isn’t just about the specific articles questioning his achievements. It’s a tactic. A very familiar one. Trump is reportedly suing the Times because of articles that, in his view, undermine his narrative of success. This all seems a bit rich, doesn’t it? Especially considering the context.
This isn’t the first time. In 2021, he sued them over articles examining his finances and tax records. That suit was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the Times’ legal expenses. Then there was the 2020 suit from his re-election campaign, which challenged an opinion essay.… Continue reading
Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Reporting on Epstein Drawing: The situation is pretty straightforward: former President Trump is threatening to sue The New York Times over their reporting on a drawing that allegedly links him to Jeffrey Epstein. The reaction, it’s safe to say, is quite varied. Some people are immediately suspicious, questioning why he’d threaten legal action if the reporting is false, while others are eagerly anticipating the potential lawsuit, especially the discovery phase, which could be a real bombshell.
Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Reporting on Epstein Drawing: This entire situation screams of a desperate attempt to control the narrative.… Continue reading
During the primary leading up to Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani’s win, the New York Times subtly implied he struggled to gain support from Jewish voters. The paper’s coverage frequently mentioned Mamdani’s criticism of Israel, creating the impression he had difficulty appealing to this demographic, despite having no solid evidence. Post-primary polls, including those from Zenith Research and GQR Research, revealed Mamdani leading with Jewish voters by significant margins. However, the New York Times largely disregarded these findings, offering vague justifications and relying on ambiguous language in subsequent articles, while also refusing to respond to specific questions about the discrepancy.
Read More
The New York Times amended its reporting on the death of a Gazan child, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, clarifying the child’s pre-existing medical condition. The initial coverage failed to mention that al-Matouq suffered from cerebral palsy, a detail the newspaper subsequently added after receiving information from the hospital that treated him. This addition aimed to provide a more complete understanding of the child’s health situation and the circumstances surrounding his death. The revised story now reflects a more nuanced account.
Read More
For twenty years, HuffPost has been dedicated to delivering unwavering, fact-based journalism. This commitment to truth requires continued support to ensure its longevity. Readers’ initial backing was crucial in establishing and strengthening the newsroom. Now, as the publication moves forward, it calls on its audience for renewed assistance to sustain its mission.
Read More
The New York Times faced criticism for a story questioning mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s racial self-identification on a college application, a story that quickly drew fire. The article, which revealed Mamdani, who is of Indian descent but born in Uganda, had checked multiple race boxes, was fueled by hacked information from a source linked to white supremacist views. Critics, including prominent journalists, deemed the story unnewsworthy, especially given the compromised source and the candidate’s explanation of his diverse background. This incident, along with the Times’s editorial stance against Mamdani, raised concerns about the newspaper’s perceived bias against his candidacy.
Read More
The New York Times faced criticism for publishing a story about mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s racial self-identification, sourced from an individual known for promoting “race science.” The Times article focused on Mamdani’s college application where he listed multiple races, and he explained his background as an American born in Africa. Controversy arose, however, due to the source, identified as Jordan Lasker, who the Times described as an academic. Reports show Lasker regularly defends race scientists and their arguments of racial inequality, using IQ tests to suggest inferiority. Critics argue that the Times downplayed Lasker’s extreme views and gave him anonymity, making the article questionable.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood