[ucaetano]

> The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.

No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.

They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.

[usegolang]

It feels pretty ironic that this article takes a jab at FB with the fake news comment and then NYT, which arguably should be held to a higher bar for pieces like this, gets a pass on fact checking.

[philippoi]

It's not an article, though. It's an editorial, which simply isn't the same format. It's a self-promotion for an author critical of Silicon Valley. It's not reporting news, but an author representing his views on a broad subject with a particular (attempt at) focus on a recent issue.

[ucaetano]

Really? It is the OPINION section. It isn't journalism, there's no editing by the NYT, no fact checking.

It has been like that for decades, if not centuries, in pretty much every single newspaper in the world.

[leereeves]

It's one thing to publish a broad range of opinions; quite another to publish libel like "[Peter Thiel thinks] women should not even have the vote."

[ucaetano]

That's still an opinion. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with Putin, but I don't see an issue with the NYT publishing an opinion piece by Putin.

[leereeves]

Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.

It's a difficult fact to discern but still a statement of fact that shouldn't be made without evidence, in this world where people are fired because the media claims they think that.

[ucaetano]

> Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.

Yes, a fact which can't be directly observed, and it is the author's opinion that Thiel thinks that.

And remember, "Thiel saying he doesn't think that" doesn't prove that he doesn't think, only that he says he doesn't think.

[leereeves]

I'm not a lawyer but as I understand the law: to prove libel, it's not necessary to prove that the claim is false, only that the defendant is unable to prove it's true.

[dragonwriter]

> I'm not a lawyer but as I understand the law: to prove libel, it's not necessary to prove that the claim is false, only that the defendant is unable to prove it's true.

You are wrong in US law; the burden of proof for falsity is on the plaintiff.

Of course, the standard of proof in most civil cases is only preponderance of the evidence, so you only need more convincing evidence than the defense has, but the burden is still on the plaintiff.

And for a public figure on a matter of concern, you have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth.