Trial: Former NYTimes Editor Put On Defensive

57-year-old Sara Palin

A former New York Times editorial page editor was put on the defensive on Tuesday in Sarah Palin's defamation trial against the newspaper over a 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked the former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor to an earlier mass shooting in Arizona.

Reuters reports James Bennet, the former editor, testified in the trial's fourth day that he relied upon research from colleagues before adding language, under deadline pressure, that suggested Palin's political action committee might have incited the 2011 Arizona shooting.

Six people died and former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords was seriously wounded in that shooting.

The June 14, 2017, editorial about gun control and the decline of political discourse followed a shooting at a Virginia baseball practice in which Steve Scalise, a member of the House of Representatives' Republican leadership, was wounded.

"I was really concerned ... that something like this didn't seem like such a big deal any more," Bennet told Palin's lawyer Shane Vogt. "It seemed like a huge deal that several Republican congressmen had been shot, and I did want to get our readers' attention to that."

The trial is a test of legal protections that have long safeguarded U.S. media from defamation claims by public figures.

Lawyers for Palin have accused the Times of trying to falsely smear her, and questioned other Times journalists about the newspaper's writing and editing procedures.

She is trying to prove that Bennet and the Times acted with "actual malice," a high standard adopted in the Sullivan decision, meaning they knew the editorial was false or had reckless disregard for the truth.

The editorial originally drafted by board member Elizabeth Williamson referenced Palin's political action committee having circulated a map before the Gifford's shooting that put the congresswoman and 19 other Democrats under cross hairs.

Bennet added language that "the link to political incitement was clear" and that there was no sign of incitement in the Scalise shooting as direct as in the Gifford's shooting.

In a subsequent correction, the Times said there was no such link.