Worse, there are entire subjects that have been pushed aside by interested parties systematically building a consensus through media that some topics are "discredited" or "unfounded" or "unproven" theories, or even "conspiracy theories," to the point where most people will automatically dismiss them if they are brought up in conversation. The difficulty is that if you don't have a direct interest in the subject, you are very unlikely to spend the energy to investigate the subject yourself and make an informed decision, and those who want to suppress backlash know that.
"Roundup? I never use that stuff. Who cares?"
Indeed, it would have been a better article if she had focused on how common this stuff is. And just used her own experience as the lead.
No, it would just require evidence of actual malice: that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
“Actual malice” is a much higher bar than is generally in place for libel, but it is not an insurmountable bar.
> I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns.
Litigation over political campaign statements for defamation is fruitless for reasons aside from the legal standard to win a judgement; it takes to long to get a final verdict, but more importantly the litigation itself keeps whatever damaging claim you are trying to suppress at the center of the news, doing your opponents work for them.
So she (and others, similarly targeted) might at least get ~decent settlements.
I guess that I was thinking about this in the context of SLAPP suits and assassinations (e.g., Karen Silkwood).