The court is interested in cases that are brought to them. It's hard for anyone to have standing in suing the NYT for not doing enough due diligence leading up to the war(s).
Point granted, though it is also true that financial investors are interested in bringing cases. I'm still left with a bad taste in my mouth; maybe it's a gut reaction to side with the weaker party.
Nothing wrong with being contrarian, but this is just a cheap rhetorical tactic that turns a legitimate, specific debate into less useful clashing of egos and worldviews.
How is: "Well, look how the New York Times editorial board in 2003 incited the entire country into war"
...a legit rebuttal to: "A 2011 columnist for the New York Times points out that a blogger was primarily engaged in defamatory speech and so shouldn't be given the legal protections afforded to journalists." ?
