Vicki Iseman, the DC lobbyist who came off as John McCain’s squeeze in that big NYT “expose” during the campaign, has settled her lawsuit against the paper.
The Times declares that it was vindicated because it didn’t pay any money, apologize or retract the story, though it did agree to run the following editor’s note to readers:
An article published on Feb. 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
But Iseman’s attorney tells Greg Sargent that this statement goes farther than the paper has before in disavowing any inappropriate conduct by Iseman and declares the settlement is a “complete vindication” for her.
Not sure what I make of this. Thoughts?
Late Update: TPM Reader JO scores it for the Times:
No money, no retraction, no apology, and the statement is carefully worded to say only that the article was not meant to convey either an affair or “an unethical relationship on behalf of [Iseman’s] clients in breach of the public trust.” But neither Iseman nor her private client held any public trust — it was McCain’s ethics that her lobbying, and her contacts with McCain, placed in issue. Even more surprising: no confidentiality agreement to keep the Times from letting everyone know just how one-sided the terms of the settlement are.
This looks like as complete a win as the Times could possibly get without spending a lot more on litigation. And since no one settles for absolutely nothing, it’s not surprising that the Times would offer this minimal fig-leaf to give her lawyer something to say. There’s no way Iseman settles on these terms if she has any shot of winning at trial. And it seems hard to believe that she and her counsel would perceive the odds as being so completely against them unless the discovery process had made it very clear that the Times would prevail on a defense that the story as published was true. Otherwise, the fight would be about the state of mind of the people at the Times who did the reporting and editing — and state of mind disputes are rarely so clear cut as to warrant such a one-sided settlement.
Later Update: Ben Smith calls it for Iseman.
Later Still Update: TPM Reader RR says it’s a close call, but that Iseman did pretty good considering the high bar for libel:
I have defended these cases. The Times gets off, but the story didn’t have the facts to prove there was a fire causing the smell of smoke. Now the Times is saying that it “did not intend to conclude” there was a romantic relationship with McCain or an unethical relationship “on behalf of her clients.”
The story did not reach those conclusions because the story did not have the facts to prove them. But the implications were clear enough. This was a “raises questions” kind of story. The implications and innuendos are there, but the story stops short of claiming the proof. This was not great journalism by any stretch.
But the “public figure” defamation plaintiff has a near impossible task. She must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the reporter knew the statements were false or had a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity (“actual malice”). I think she did OK because the Times is now admitting, if that is the word, that it had no proof of a romantic or unethical relationship.
