Sarah Palin's Libel Claim Against the New York Times Rejected by Jury (VIDEO)

I haven't really followed this. Mostly, I'm interested because Ms. Palin's been out of the spotlight for a while. 

At the Wall Street Journal, "Jury Rejects Sarah Palin’s Defamation Claims Against the New York Times":

A federal jury concluded the New York Times didn’t defame Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial, a verdict that follows a judge’s surprise announcement that he planned to rule against the former Republican vice-presidential candidate after jurors finished their work.

The verdict, delivered on Tuesday by jurors in Manhattan, is the latest chapter in a closely watched libel trial that probed the inner workings of a national news outlet and tested the scope of legal protections for the media.

Jurors reached their judgment after a weeklong trial in which Ms. Palin and leading figures from the Times testified.

Ms. Palin filed her lawsuit in 2017 shortly after the Times published an editorial about gun violence and political rhetoric. The editorial referenced a 2011 shooting that killed six people and wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat. It incorrectly suggested that an ad circulated by Ms. Palin’s political-action committee inspired the Arizona spree....

[U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff], a veteran jurist with a strong independent streak, concluded that Ms. Palin hadn’t presented sufficient evidence to prove the Times had acted with “actual malice,” meaning the outlet either knowingly published a false statement or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

“This is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times,” he said, but added that the law sets a very high standard that Ms. Palin didn’t meet...