Post Libel Case: Did the Paper Ignore Evidence Its Source Was Unreliable?

By
The Post's libel case looks worse for the paper.

It appears the tabloid might have deliberately shut its eyes to written documentation that undermined the credibility of the anonymous source upon which two stories alleging DSK's accuser to be a prostitute were based. (She sued for libel — more here on how the case might shake out.) The original hooker stories also declared that the housekeeper had ended up working at the Sofitel because the union, acting the part of pimp, had placed her there. For a feint at balance, the paper included a comment from a union spokesperson calling it "absurd."

“She never registered at our hiring hall. We never sent her for a single interview. We absolutely did not place her at the hotel and we do not track tips.

But, Erik Wemple reports, it turns out the union also sent the Post the woman's application papers for the job — in which there was no mention of a union. She was referred there by a job agency and listed as a reference an employee of a refugee-assistance organization — which means the Post should have, at the very least, doubled down on its scrutiny of the anonymous source saying the opposite of what the documentation showed. They went a different route, apparently, which is bad news for their libel defense team.

New York Post prostitution story gets shakier [WP]
Previously: How Messy Will the Post Libel Case Get?