4 ms·

If I understand correctly, there's a real edge case going on here: Everything Krebs reported was simply what he was told by a then high-ranking employee of the

If I understand correctly, there's a real edge case going on here: Everything Krebs reported was simply what he was told by a then high-ranking employee of the company. True, Krebs didn't know this at the time, but I would think it completely exonerates him (otherwise, it would be easy for corporations to destroy journalists they didn't like by having an executive give them false information which they then dutifully report). Any legal eagles here who can clarify this aspect? Is "I was just repeating what your executive told me" a get-out-of-jail-free card?

cyral 5y ago
I believe their complaint is that Krebs has never issued a retraction or clarified that his original article is false and that his source was the hacker. Even in his update article he uses wording to make it sound like his source and the guy arrested were two different people.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Is it his job to authenticate the source, or, to authenticate, verify and validate the information in the story?
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Considering he considers his work "independent investigative journalism", I'd say that it is.
  - boeingUH60 5y ago
    Of course, the story was posted on his blog. That's 100% his duty, or at least if he wants to maintain his reputation as a journalist.
  - vel0city 5y ago
    The standard for defamation is: . knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or . acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or . acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it. Not vetting your sources can be seen as acting in reckless disregard of the truth or acting negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statements were true.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  What is their legal theory though? Have courts found that journalist must retroactively update their previous stories based on new information? Even if they have, is that defamation?
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    It's quite funnny that a company arguing "we disclosed because we filed an esoteric (in terms of public disclosure) security filing" to demand that Krebs retract his previous story; maybe if he opens the front door and shouts "Sorry!" it would meet their level of communication?
InTheArena 5y ago
From my perspective, the failure was the lack of a correction. That's the point at which it goes from being "I trusted someone who I should not have, and was a unwitting accomplice" to the possibility of libel.
- gzer0 5y ago
  If this is the case, I am having a hard time understanding why the vast majority of media and particularly "news" channels in the United States are not being sued into oblivion then.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    Because laws in the USA make it very very very difficult to hold media accountable. For good reasons - most of the time. But it has also led to the situation where media face no consequences here for their actions.The libel bar is far higher in the USA then almost any other liberal democracy. Honestly, all I would like to see here is a correction from Krebs, that enlightens people more about the risk of insider attacks, the role that the media can play in that.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Dominion Voting Systems is currently in middle of suing Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and others for billions, so it's definitely a thing that happens.
- andjd 5y ago
  Defamation dosen't work like that though. The only thing that is relevant is what the author knew or should have known when they published the statement. There's no legal requirement to issue a retraction if you later know that your previous statement was false. Journalistic ethics says you should, but the law doesn't require it. Issuing a retraction can potentially lessen the damages if the original statement leads to liability, but that's only relevant if the plaintiff first wins on the original statement being defamatory.
  - InTheArena 5y ago

cyral 5y ago

I believe their complaint is that Krebs has never issued a retraction or clarified that his original article is false and that his source was the hacker. Even in his update article he uses wording to make it sound like his source and the guy arrested were two different people.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Is it his job to authenticate the source, or, to authenticate, verify and validate the information in the story?
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Considering he considers his work "independent investigative journalism", I'd say that it is.
- boeingUH60 5y ago
  Of course, the story was posted on his blog. That's 100% his duty, or at least if he wants to maintain his reputation as a journalist.
- vel0city 5y ago
  The standard for defamation is: . knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or . acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or . acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it. Not vetting your sources can be seen as acting in reckless disregard of the truth or acting negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statements were true.
Someone1234 5y ago
What is their legal theory though? Have courts found that journalist must retroactively update their previous stories based on new information? Even if they have, is that defamation?
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  It's quite funnny that a company arguing "we disclosed because we filed an esoteric (in terms of public disclosure) security filing" to demand that Krebs retract his previous story; maybe if he opens the front door and shouts "Sorry!" it would meet their level of communication?

InTheArena 5y ago

From my perspective, the failure was the lack of a correction. That's the point at which it goes from being "I trusted someone who I should not have, and was a unwitting accomplice" to the possibility of libel.

gzer0 5y ago
If this is the case, I am having a hard time understanding why the vast majority of media and particularly "news" channels in the United States are not being sued into oblivion then.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  Because laws in the USA make it very very very difficult to hold media accountable. For good reasons - most of the time. But it has also led to the situation where media face no consequences here for their actions.The libel bar is far higher in the USA then almost any other liberal democracy. Honestly, all I would like to see here is a correction from Krebs, that enlightens people more about the risk of insider attacks, the role that the media can play in that.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Dominion Voting Systems is currently in middle of suing Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and others for billions, so it's definitely a thing that happens.
andjd 5y ago
Defamation dosen't work like that though. The only thing that is relevant is what the author knew or should have known when they published the statement. There's no legal requirement to issue a retraction if you later know that your previous statement was false. Journalistic ethics says you should, but the law doesn't require it. Issuing a retraction can potentially lessen the damages if the original statement leads to liability, but that's only relevant if the plaintiff first wins on the original statement being defamatory.
- InTheArena 5y ago