How the he'll can mark Schwarz legally do what he did?

[kingottoiii]

He'd have the burden of proving that ESPN and Schwartz either intentionally disseminated something that they knew was wrong, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (in addition to the other elements - that the story was in fact false and that Fine was harmed by its dissemination).

High burden to meet.

Well they already decided in 2003 that there was nothing to report. Since there was no new evidence since then, wouldn't that screw them? And why did Schwarz not try and find more info on this guy? If he did he woulda found out his own mother conflicting the story and that the guy owed Bernie $5k. It wouldn't have been very hard to do this BEFORE going on air. Or how about waiting for some info from the police? Seems like a slam dunk to me.

 

[hungrychuck]

From what I have seen so far, Schwartz and ESPN are not even close to the libel line. It's legitimate reporting, especially in light of the Paterno climate.

Couple of questions, though:

Did Schwatrz report the previous investigation by Syracuse police, ESPN and Syracuse Post Standard, with no action by any of the three?

If Syracuse police declined to pursue years ago based on statute of limitations, what allows them to take up the case years later?

If Schwartz did not mention the previous investigations and the results in his first report, then I would think he is on much shakier ground.

 

[ljmilman]

That's your opinion. The key is to find a second source to back things up. Family members have the most credibility because they're closest to the case.

You think so? It was my understanding that family members are traditionally discouraged as biggest corroboration (someone on this board compared it to making a relative as a reference on a job application) because they are more likely to support their relative to a point of bias.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Heard Schwartz on the radio at around 11 when I was driving home to CT. Whether or not this is true is one thing, but Schwarz almost sounded like he was rooting for it to be true. Didn't sound very professional in painting the story.

 

[ljmilman]

Heard Schwartz on the radio at around 11 when I was driving home to CT. Whether or not this is true is one thing, but Schwarz almost sounded like he was rooting for it to be true. Didn't sound very professional in painting the story.

Right? I felt the same way on his on-air reports on ESPN...it was almost as if "I'm reporting this, it HAS to be true." He did not come across as a reporter as much as he came across as a friend of Davis and Lang.

 

[hungrychuck]

From what I have seen so far, Schwartz and ESPN are not even close to the libel line. It's legitimate reporting, especially in light of the Paterno climate.

Couple of questions, though:

Did Schwatrz report the previous investigation by Syracuse police, ESPN and Syracuse Post Standard, with no action by any of the three?

If Syracuse police declined to pursue years ago based on statute of limitations, what allows them to take up the case years later?

If Schwartz did not mention the previous investigations and the results in his first report, then I would think he is on much shakier ground.

Nevermind, just saw the original report. Have no idea what Bernie is capable of, but something about this seems wrong.

Not impressed by the way the reporter handled this, the corroboration, or the idea that this young man was abused until the age of 27.

This is not said out of any orangegogglery, but this has a bad smell to it.

 

[Millhouse]

I'm referring to Schwarz fabricating " possibly happened thousands of times". And saying it with a clear distinction in his voice that is leading people to think it is a straight fact, and not actually an allegation. and how is the one person, and only that one person who is making the allegation a CREDIBLE source as you say?

thousands of times is hard to believe.

thousands usually means at least 3000. you wouldn't say thousands for less than that. that would be every day for over 8 years. every day?