With all the news of war and turmoil and PR crises based on harassment allegations in the news these days, you can be forgiven for forgetting that former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is locked in a vicious legal tilt with the New York Times.
The lawsuit stems from a political editorial this past summer that linked an ad created by Palin’s SuperPAC and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back in 2011. That shooting, at an Arizona campaign stop, wounded several and killed six.
At the heart of Palin’s case is the idea that the shooter never saw the ad. In fact, the editorial in question never put out any evidence that he had. Because of this, the Times issued a correction the following day. But, Palin says, the PR damage was done. She sued the Times.
The case wound its way through the system until a federal judge dismissed the defamation case against the paper. That ruling was not nearly good enough for Palin, who is appealing the decision to the US Court of Appeals.
Palin’s attorneys are arguing that the Times “conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs. Palin to an award of punitive damages…”
Regardless of the legal outcome of the case, the story has become a political barometer for the public. Those who support Palin are predisposed to be suspicious of the Times, and those that support the times, are generally critical of Ms. Palin. It’s not a clear-cut delineation, and you can bet those aren’t the arguments that are made, however.
On one side, you will have people demanding more responsible journalism. On the other side, you will have people saying they’re defending freedom of speech. The judge who dismissed the case originally, justified his ruling this way:
“Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States… In the exercise of that freedom, mistakes will be made, some of which will be hurtful to others.”
That statement, too, is open to interpretation, and you can bet people are “interpreting” it to their heart’s content. The judge’s comments have faced the gauntlet of talk radio and social media arguments. Some say his statements give the media too much leeway. Others argue that everyone is human, so you can’t criminalize honest errors.
Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess, but you can take one thing to the bank: It’s not over yet.PR Insights & Public Relations Strategy
By EPR Staff2 min read
Palin suit against NY Times heads into overtime
By EPR Staff2 min read
With all the news of war and turmoil and PR crises based on harassment allegations in the news these days, you can be forgiven for forgetting that former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is locked in a vicious legal tilt with the New York Times.
The lawsuit stems from a political editorial this past summer that linked an ad created by Palin’s SuperPAC and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back in 2011. That shooting, at an Arizona campaign stop, wounded several and killed six.
At the heart of Palin’s case is the idea that the shooter never saw the ad. In fact, the editorial in question never put out any evidence that he had. Because of this, the Times issued a correction the following day. But, Palin says, the PR damage was done. She sued the Times.
The case wound its way through the system until a federal judge dismissed the defamation case against the paper. That ruling was not nearly good enough for Palin, who is appealing the decision to the US Court of Appeals.
Palin’s attorneys are arguing that the Times “conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs. Palin to an award of punitive damages…”
Regardless of the legal outcome of the case, the story has become a political barometer for the public. Those who support Palin are predisposed to be suspicious of the Times, and those that support the times, are generally critical of Ms. Palin. It’s not a clear-cut delineation, and you can bet those aren’t the arguments that are made, however.
On one side, you will have people demanding more responsible journalism. On the other side, you will have people saying they’re defending freedom of speech. The judge who dismissed the case originally, justified his ruling this way:
“Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States… In the exercise of that freedom, mistakes will be made, some of which will be hurtful to others.”
That statement, too, is open to interpretation, and you can bet people are “interpreting” it to their heart’s content. The judge’s comments have faced the gauntlet of talk radio and social media arguments. Some say his statements give the media too much leeway. Others argue that everyone is human, so you can’t criminalize honest errors.
Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess, but you can take one thing to the bank: It’s not over yet.Written by
EPR Staff
EPR Staff
Other news
See all
EPR Editorial Team · 05/15/2026
New AI Visibility Study Exposes $28 Billion NFL Sponsorship Mispricing
A new index ranking all 32 NFL franchises by AI citation share finds five teams worth a combined $28 billion register zero in ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews.
EPR Editorial Team · 05/15/2026
Anduril and Palantir Out-Cite Lockheed, Northrop, RTX, Boeing, and General Dynamics Combined Inside AI Engines, New Defense Benchmark Finds
A new benchmark reveals Anduril Industries and Palantir Technologies are cited more frequently in AI assistants than the five largest U.S. defense primes combined. The Defense & Aerospace AI Visibility Index 2026, based on 28,400 prompts, shows Anduril and Palantir account for 35.0% of AI Citation Share, while Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, Boeing Defense, and General Dynamics combined account for 21.1%.
EPR Editorial Team · 05/15/2026
Geo Functions Are Necessary Today
The job description has changed. A communications leader at a Fortune 500 firm now has to answer a question that didn't exist three years ago: when a buyer asks ChatGPT about our category, do we show up — and what does it say about us?This is not a marginal concern. Reuters Insti…
Never Miss a Headline
Daily PR headlines, weekly long-form analysis, and our proprietary research drops — straight to your inbox.