The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong grounding in facts or is written to explicitly cause uproar and not inform. It belongs to places like The Sun or The Daily Mail.
Would you please point to an example or two where it is so one-sided that it’s far from the truth?
Stronger: The Economist is used to having to operate under UK libel laws, which are far stronger than US laws. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of libel in the US; in the UK it isn't.
So accusing them of slander is not particularly believable. I'd need to see a specific claim, evidence that the claim was false, and evidence that the falsehood rose to the legal standard of slander. A bare claim, with no evidence, just looks like overheated rhetoric by someone who doesn't like The Economist's position, but who can't actually do the work of refuting it.
Damages are only required (in certain countries) for a legal case of slander to be successful, they're not needed to fulfil the definition of slander.
It would be slander if I said the words "HN user drw85 has never said a sentence that didn't contain racist abuse", even if my saying it has no impact on you or anyone at all.
(Just as it would be libellous - the equivalent of slanderous but for written rather than spoken lies about people - if I wrote a comment here on HN accusing you of being a mass murderer, even if you don't notice the comment and no law enforcement ever consider it of interest nor any other effects.)
'a false, spoken statement about someone which damages that person's reputation, or the making of such a statement'
I guess the distinction is important, because i could make a false statement that is not damaging, like 'swores has a red nose.', which might be a joke and thus is a false statement but not damaging nor slander.
In the US, reporting true things is literally never considered slander [0][1][2].
The legal system has recognized truth as a wholly adequate defense to claims of defamation (which includes slander) dating back to 1734 [3] - before the Constitution even written (1787).
--
[0] - "Under the United States law, a statement cannot be held to be actionable as slanderous or libellous if the statement is true but has "slight inaccuracies of expression", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth
> Trump will talk to literally anyone because his key non-malevolent talent is playing the media like a violin.
Then why not 60 Minutes? That is the traditional interview one does ahead of an election. He had tried before, and walked out in disgust when given even the slightest fact check. It would seem the only critical interviews he can finish are those he's too stupid to realize are making him look bad ("I don't want testing").
It is a notable exception but it is a complicated one; not what it seems.
For one thing, Trump will talk to 60 Minutes when it suits him, I suspect. There is no journalist who has criticised him who he hasn't called terrible names and then spoken to again -- it's a pattern. He invites his critics back in. And they will always come back.
He hasn't locked out 60 Minutes the way that simply refusing to talk to journalists, or booting them out of the room, does. The way he responded to 60 Minutes was responding to the media. He responded in the media. He levelled accusations, they responded to his accusations. On his terms.
Like a violin.
And then when he does a 60 Minutes interview again -- which he will -- he will humiliate them for coming back, at least once, in that interview.
I am not saying this as a fan of the man; I believe all his other talents to be malevolent. But I am saying he is unbelievably, astonishingly good at what he does to the media for his benefit.
To. Not with. Not for. To.
For example, he rails against leaks but he is the biggest leaker. He rails against anonymous sources but he speaks off the record through proxies all the time. It's dark arts genius.
"Don't speak to journalists" is comically inept on the Trump scale. Anyone who thinks they are comparable strategies is not paying attention.
If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?
My guess is he's actually lowered the bar of expectations so low that it cannot get any lower, it's on the floor. And folks inclined to circle the party wagons are willing to overlook at lot, something they would never do for outsider candidates who don't wear their colors or haven't lowered their own bar.
> If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?
Because they aren't as good at it as he is. He is relentless at this because he has an unquenchable need to be the centre of everything, good or bad. He is a malignant narcissist; he doesn't expend the slightest bit of energy worrying if something is true or false.
I think he's an appalling person. But let's be clear: he has at least one great, unnerving talent where news management is concerned, which is a belligerent commitment to always being talked about.
B. I completely disagree. Trump calls them names, because his base hates these people, and has some just grievances. In the past, such people risked being hung by the mob; name-calling is a far superior alternative and not the end of democracy, as even The Economist implies.
C. There is a difference between fair criticism, impartially given; and a myopic criticism. His fans feel the criticism is unfair; which causes all criticism to be tuned out. That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
Nobody specifies implied contracts. They are implied.
In the case of the USA, from centuries of understanding that what marked the USA out as different to the European states from which people were dissenting was a commitment that power would answer to truth and constitutional protections to enable that.
(I'm a Brit but this is obvious to me)
> That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
If this is the way people are now thinking, then they deserve the Rollerball future they are building for themselves.
In that case, considering we fought a war to be free of your government, there’s an implied contract I must follow, that Brits get zero say on American politics. This implied contract is even older than modern journalism.
