Why Lou Holtz is suing the Daily Beast

However, as Holtz’s complaint details, by then the harm was done: For nearly three months the false statement remained accessible to readers and during that time, other news organizations parroted Woodruff’s charge that “Holtz says Immigrants are Deadbeats,” including USA Today, the Washington Post, and several sports outlets. Holtz attached two exhibits to his complaint, further illustrating the reach of Woodruff’s piece and its affect on his reputation. Exhibit A included Woodruff’s article and a half-dozen pages showing the fake headline spreading over the web. An additional 18 pages comprised Exhibit B and included twitter screen shots capturing the vitriol triggered by Woodruff’s story, with comments condemning Holtz as “fascist,” “xenophobic racist,” “bigot,” “senile,” “drunk,” an “awful person,” and a “racist bastard.”

In addition to suing over the false headline, Holtz alleged “defamation by implication,” based on the Daily Beast’s updated headline — “Lou Holtz Goes on Immigrant-Bashing RNC Rant” — and the article’s misrepresentation of the content of Holtz’s speech. The lawsuit explained that the majority of the speech focused on the unborn and the need to safeguard innocent life. Only toward the end of his talk, when sharing stories of his childhood — and his immigrant grandparents — was reference made to learning English; and then, the context was that his grandmother refused to teach him the language of her native Ukraine. Holtz also stressed that Woodruff furthered the false “immigrant-bashing” narrative by omitting the line, “You come here. WELCOME,” from his interlude on immigration.

To prevail on his claims, Holtz, as a public figure, will need to establish the Daily Beast and Woodruff acted with “malice,” meaning they published the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth. Holtz hopes to prove malice by highlighting the Daily Beast’s earlier attacks on him for supporting then-candidate Donald Trump, and the subliminal snark embedded in the coding for the photo of him that appeared in Woodruff’s article — “lou-holtz-cheat.” Holtz also points to comments on Woodruff’s Twitter feed expressing concern over the accuracy of her reporting. And, of course, as one Twitter user noted, Woodruff didn’t need a citation for her claim that Holtz expressed anti-immigrant sentiments because she personally attended his speech; Woodruff would clearly know, then, that Holtz did not call immigrants “deadbeats.”

The Daily Beast and Woodruff will now need to respond to the complaint and then comes the long drawn out process of litigation, unless the parties settle the case. Whether Holtz is willing to drop the lawsuit will likely depend on the media’s response and whether the press picks up the news of the litigation — and, in turn, the Daily Beast’s belated retraction — as quickly as it did the original alleged libel.

In the end, though, all the money in the world cannot give a man back his good name. That’s really what this fight is about.

Editor’s Note: Woodruff worked for the Washington Examiner in the past.

Correction: Due to an editor’s error, an earlier version of this post said the Daily Beast “appear[ed] to have” removed Woodruff’s piece from its website. In fact, the piece is still up and can be accessed here.

Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge, and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct professor for the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.