Should Doyle and Ferentz sue for defamation?

[iowamike21]

Maybe they should. Pat Forde and the others who have attacked the personal character and integrity of Doyle and Ferentz, without the slightest crumb of evidence, deserve to be called out. Why should they be allowed to get away with character assassination? Forde and others did what they did with malice. While defamation is difficult to prove, in the case of Forde and other national media types, it would seem that if anyone could ever be convicted of defamation of character, it would be Forde and his cronies. And that, I think, is exactly what they deserve.

I think there is a time to defend yourself against these kinds of attacks, and although it might prolong the issue, maybe it would be worth it.

At any rate, suing for defamation of character seems worthy of consideration.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

Not Kirk's style...he seems to be a "take the high road" kind of person.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

 

[iowamike21]

Agreed. But like I say, maybe THIS is the time to stop taking it on the chin. When is enough enough? I like the high road too, but defending yourself against malicious personal attacks isn't exactly the low road, especially when the personal attacks have been launched with vitriolic and wanton disregard for any semblance of honesty, accuracy or fairness. Somebody needs to take the Pat Fordes of this media circus down. Someone with the verifiable integrity of a Kirk Ferentz could do it. But I can certainly understand why Kirk wouldn't...

 

[HawkeyeShane]

Agreed. But like I say, maybe THIS is the time to stop taking it on the chin. When is enough enough? I like the high road too, but defending yourself against malicious personal attacks isn't exactly the low road, especially when it's done with wanton disregard for any semblance of honesty, accuracy or fairness. Somebody needs to take the Pat Fordes of this media circus down. Someone with the verifiable integrity of a Kirk Ferentz could do it. But I can also understand why Kirk wouldn't...

It could also look like sour grapes...Kirk wouldn't want that either.

 

[tanabs]

Maybe they should. Pat Forde and the others who have attacked the personal character and integrity of Doyle and Ferentz, without the slightest crumb of evidence, deserve to be called out. Why should they be allowed to get away with character assassination? Forde and others did what they did with malice. While defamation is difficult to prove, in the case of Forde and other national media types, it would seem that if anyone could ever be convicted of defamation of character, it would be Forde and his cronies. And that, I think, is exactly what they deserve.

I think there is a time to defend yourself against these kinds of attacks, and although it might prolong the issue, maybe it would be worth it.

At any rate, suing for defamation of character seems worthy of consideration.

you have to be kidding

 

[BALDIES7980]

Too much free speech protection. Would never go anywhere.
I would love to see him respond individually to the **** talkers and let them know he will be seeking out their most hated competitors to make sure they get information etc. first.

 

[tanabs]

so, the pundits are terrible people for jumping to conclusions about KF but it is perfectly acceptable for everyone here to jump to their own conclusions (with just as little facts as those you're vilifying) in defense of Ferentz?

that's some sound logic right there

 

[tm3308]

Too much free speech protection. Would never go anywhere.
I would love to see him respond individually to the **** talkers and let them know he will be seeking out their most hated competitors to make sure they get information etc. first.

Wouldn't their recent work prove that Ferentz withholding information isn't going to keep them from getting their stories in to their editors?

so, the pundits are terrible people for jumping to conclusions about KF but it is perfectly acceptable for everyone here to jump to their own conclusions (with just as little facts as those you're vilifying) in defense of Ferentz?

that's some sound logic right there

I can't speak for everyone else, but I never jumped to conclusions. I threw out as many possibilities as I could, and judged one to be more likely than the others, but I never ruled the others out. That's well within reason. The stuff that Doyel/Forde wrote was garbage, they didn't really even consider other possibilities. They saw 12/13 players and ran with just that.

That said, no way does this go to court. 1. I don't think there's a legitimate case to begin with. 2. That's not KF's style. 3. Defamation suits can be pretty tough to win.

 

[iowamike21]

Yes, defamation suits are difficult to win...as I said initially. And yes, there is a First Amendment, but it is not carte blanche. We do have libel, slander and defamation laws as well. And having spent 10 years writing daily newspaper columns and editorials -- several of which blasted other media outlets for being dishonest, inaccurate and unfair -- I have some personal acquaintance with the standards of professional journalism practice.

That's why I bothered to suggest if anyone, anywhere, anytime would have a good chance of winning a defamation suit, it would be Kirk Ferentz v. Pat Forde/ESPN/et al.

It's simply frustrating, both personally and professionally, to see the wanton disregard for fair, honest and accurate reporting go unpunished. And finally, as Peter Parker knows so well but Forde, ESPN, CBSsportsline, and far too many others have yet to learn, "With great power (the First Amendment, the Internet...) comes great responsibility."

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

Aren't libel and defamation suits hard to win unless they said things that:

A. Wouldn't let you get a job/got you fired
B. Made you suffer severe emotional distress

? There are surely others, but I don't believe any of this falls under any category of which taking it to trial would be a good idea (read: you will not win the trial).

 

[ColumbusHawk]

As a public figure, Coach Ferentz would have to prove "actual malice."

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "actual malice" as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

 

[TimMcLaughlin]

As a public figure, Coach Ferentz would have to prove "actual malice."

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "actual malice" as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

This is correct. "NYC Actual malice," as it's sometimes referred to is very difficult to prove. Because of the type of person KF is ("take the high road," as mentioned earlier) he will not spend the time or money pursuing this.

 

[TimMcLaughlin]

Oh, but I can promise you one thing...Forde will never get an interview or any access to the program moving forward. Hope that the Hawks reach unprecedented levels in the next 5-10 years and this tool is unable to have access to the program to do his job.

 

[DexterMorgan]

so, the pundits are terrible people for jumping to conclusions about KF but it is perfectly acceptable for everyone here to jump to their own conclusions (with just as little facts as those you're vilifying) in defense of Ferentz?

that's some sound logic right there

I'm not quite sure you're the best judge of that.

 

[theboat]

so, the pundits are terrible people for jumping to conclusions about KF but it is perfectly acceptable for everyone here to jump to their own conclusions (with just as little facts as those you're vilifying) in defense of Ferentz?

that's some sound logic right there

It is called innocence until proven guilty. Holding someone as innocent until proven otherwise is not a problem, but holding someone as guilty without proof is. that being said, nothing more will come of this other than no interviews and another person being bitter towards Iowa for years to come. **cough**Rome**cough.