This would probably present a high burden to prove. To prove libel, they'd have to prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) that the individuals making the statement knew that the statement was false (or should have known it was false), and 3) that they acted negligently or with malice toward the subject of the statement.
Element one is a no-brainer. Element two is going to be difficult to prove. Element three would be very tough.
Not saying he shouldn't try. But libel cases against the media are very difficult because they have "special" 1st amendment protections that you have to overcome.
This would probably present a high burden to prove. To prove libel, they'd have to prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) that the individuals making the statement knew that the statement was false (or should have known it was false), and 3) that they acted negligently or with malice toward the subject of the statement.
Element one is a no-brainer. Element two is going to be difficult to prove. Element three would be very tough.
Not saying he shouldn't try. But libel cases against the media are very difficult because they have "special" 1st amendment protections that you have to overcome.
1- proven in court 2- their business model is as experts in discerning fact from falsehoods. 3- not updating as facts became available
But you're right, it is a high burden to overcome.