Knowing the legal slog it was likely to be, we have not commented in the months since Trump announced he was suing Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for fraud claiming with solid reason that the publication of a poll that was so bad, so off, so obviously an outlier that it must have been intended to manipulate public opinion rather than enlighten readers. We previously critiqued the poll in question in these pages:
More on Selzer poll — defects and purposes – and the play of early voting
The Quad City Times reported yesterday: Trump moves lawsuit against Ann Selzer, Des Moines Register, from federal to state court. As is typical of that publication and or whoever they serve as a scribe, it was one-sided albeit with the disclaimer that “Legal representation for Trump did not immediately respond to a comment request for this story.” We can imagine they give them a few minutes to comment before “press time” and were too busy to quote more extensively from the pleadings. The article makes much of Iowa’s recent SLAPP lawsuit limitations which are mentioned in the QCT article while intimating Trump’s effort would be legally meritless if he had not beat the deadline for implementation of the new standards.
I am not a legal expert nor do I know the applicability of anything I bring up here to the intricacies of the related law. My comments take a “commercial” analysis of duties that seem to be applied to other areas of commerce. They also reflect an opinion formed about Selzer, The Des Moines Register the AP and most so-called newspapers. I do not like The Des Moines Register the AP or the Quad City Times but I am a mature consumer and appropriately skeptical about “reporting” but others are more accustomed to rely on “newspapers” for unbiased dependable information which The Des Moines Register does not provide. Yet they seek to sell their product as such.
Now I believe them to be prevaricators regularly by commission and omission. They are propagandists for a world view with just about everything they put out because of the particular spin and distortions they impart along with their omissions. My admittedly jaundiced opinion of those who lie when they claim to be anything other than brokers of biased information or opinion would be more respectful If they would just admit it. I admit to having biases in what I say and write. But those commercial enterprises make it a practice to appeal to their subscribers that they are unbiased purveyors. Bullshit.
So yes I think Trump’s charges are at least ethically correct. And for lack of truth in labeling by the defendants I also believe Trump has a commercial claim herein employing my unschooled analysis and that those outlets were engaged in an in-kind campaign contribution to the Harris campaign and the Democrat Party, again unschooled. There was no adequate truth in labeling attendant to the poll.
Now it is a fact that the defendants are engaged in a commercial enterprise. The “anti-SLAPP” fog the AP article tries to impart in this article is from an outfit (the AP) with unclean hands itself, indeed a participant in the fraud. Now if they would all just admit that their view of free speech includes the right to lie, and represent bogus information as being produced without intentional bias, to offer or produce such while using contaminated or overrepresented “ingredients”, to be cavalier about the poll’s likely accuracy as a clear outlier (an ongoing fraud) and rather was intended to 1) influence the election in Iowa and nationwide 2) do so as an unreported in-kind campaign contribution and 3) to sell newspapers. (Hmmm this all smacks of Russia-Gate as well and the Steele “dossier”).
The intentional promulgation of bogus information is clear in that the defendants are mature pollsters had to know the poll was an outlier (outliar) and that I am aware made no sufficient cautionary warning to that effect. Any pro-forma disclaimer (not offered anyway that I am aware) was not offered on sufficiently cautionary or timely basis and was eliminated or minimized in order to achieve the goal of misinformation propping up a favored Party in order to defraud the Trump campaign (a competitor for influence) and consumers/voters while continuing to mislead them that their product provided wholesome information.
They were engaged in selling their product with flagrant disregard for its wholesomeness and to warn the consumer of its deficiencies; purport that the article was news when the product was commissioned and perpetrated by the defendants and further purported it to be “news” in its placement, not as commentary or opinion which is properly covered by free-speech rights within or without commercial enterprise except when it runs afoul of any regulatory law as to disclaimers. A disclaimer that “we are entitled to print bullshit and claim it to be pure” would be the most honest thing they have done in their careers. It would make a fine masthead.
